[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Shared libs with non-PIC code on i386

#include <hallo.h>
Philippe Troin wrote on Wed Aug 15, 2001 um 04:44:21PM:

> > explain my problems and what the problem is.  I have a problem with
> > linking PIC (position independent code) with non-PIC code in a
> > shared library. The current policy requires all libraries to contain
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <--\
> This should read "policy requires all *shared* libraries ------/

I mean "shared", of course.

>      All libraries must have a shared version in the `lib*' package and a
>      static version in the `lib*-dev' package.  The shared version must be
>      compiled with `-fPIC', and the static version must not be.  In other
>      words, each `*.c' file will need to be compiled twice.

Yes, this is the paragraph in the policy I am talking about. Reading
this word after word, I think I wouldn't violate it enabling the DGA
plugin since _my_ stuff is compiled with -fPIC ;)

> > linking on non-x86 plattforms. Fortunately, this works fine on i386
> > and used sometimes.
> This ie evil. Having non-PIC shared libraries makes them non-shared
> anymore (at least in memory).

Yes, at least the non-PIC parts.

> libXxf86dga.a is a static lib, hence should contain non-PIC code
> according to policy.

Yes, and it seems to be not suitable for shared linking, since...

> > without DGA on non-x86? Currently, I had to remove the complete DGA
> > support (though it is stable enough), so this "exceptional case"
> > would make DGA for most users possible.
> Maybe you should lobby for a libXxf86dga.so shared library ? Policy
> mandates that both .a and .so of all libraries should be provided.

...there is no libXxf86dga.so. But I could bother Branden, of course ;)

Es ist einfacher Linux zu konfigurieren, als mit Windows zu leben.
anonymous in dcouln

Reply to: