Re: is allow_nonpic_in_shlib still useful?

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:23:38AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In the plperl and plpython makefiles we look for a shared library of
> libperl or libpython, and if it's not found, we check for
> allow_nonpic_in_shlib, and if that's yes, then we proceed anyway.
> Apparently, and IIRC, this was set up in a time when those shared
> libraries were not available through standard builds, but I think that
> hasn't been the case for quite a while.
>
> The only platforms where we set allow_nonpick_in_shlib is linux and
> freebsd/i386 (presumably an obsolescent combination). Are there any
> Linux builds that don't supply the required shared libraries?

I can't recall such a system. On x86_64, GNU ld would reject the resulting
text relocations anyway.

> I suspend this hack isn't useful anymore and ought to be removed.

Agreed. On !allow_nonpic_in_shlib systems, the effect appears to be that we
quietly skip the plperl build, despite --with-perl, when the Perl build lacks
a shlib. This seems unhelpful; I think --with-perl should result in either an
error or a built plperl. Likewise for plpython. The coincidentally-better
build behavior under allow_nonpic_in_shlib should become unconditional.