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
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 |