Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC
Date: 2003-11-29 18:12:58
Message-ID: 200311291812.hATICwu09572@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu> writes:
> > The project lead for the Aurora SPARC Linux project is who recommended it in
> > the first place;
>
> We were told equally positively, by equally well-informed persons, that
> we should prefer -fpic if at all possible.
>
> The best I have been able to tell is that none of our .so's are anywhere
> near large enough to require -fPIC. In the absence of any evidence that
> we really are near the threshold, I'd prefer to go for the
> better-performing alternative.

One question would be what happens when it fails? Does it fail visibly
so we would hear about it? If so, we can take the risk.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-29 18:21:26 Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-29 18:07:23 Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC