Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 18:21:26
Message-ID: 8093.1070130086@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The best I have been able to tell is that none of our .so's are anywhere
>> near large enough to require -fPIC.

> 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.

Yes, you'd get a link failure. On the platforms I've seen it on (HPUX
at least, on an old project with .so's in the dozens-of-megabytes range)
the error message is pretty specific that you should have used -fPIC.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-29 18:26:48 Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-29 18:12:58 Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC