| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: -fPIC |
| Date: | 2005-09-11 20:57:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20050911205705.GB6026@ns.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any
> > difference at all) is that the former is faster.
>
> I don't doubt that, but out of curiosity, considering that everyone else
> is using libtool, and libtool always uses -fPIC, what kind of impact
> does this *really* have?
I certainly wouldn't assume something done in libtool is necessairly the
'smart' approach, ever.
> > I think the correct answer is for PL/Java to do s/-fpic/-fPIC/ on
> > CFLAGS in its Makefile, rather than trying to force the same on
> > everything else.
>
> That would certainly work, but is that the kind of interface we want to
> offer? In the extreme case, a module could end up redefining a great
> deal of the shared library knowledge that it was supposed to not have
> to care about.
I don't think it's all that sane to expect a generalized build system to
support every possible library compilation requirement...
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-09-11 20:57:07 | Re: problem for o/p |
| Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2005-09-11 19:37:25 | Re: random system table corruption ... |