This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ppc relocs
- From: "Kevin B. Hendricks" <kevin dot hendricks at sympatico dot ca>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com,Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>,Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba dot org>,Steven Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 07:32:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: ppc relocs
- References: <200303021156.h22Buqs21416@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20030302130616.F1717@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
I thought ppc32 required PIC code for shared libraries. My biggest
porting problem on OOo was that x86 people were constantly building static
libs and then linking them into shared libs. I had to go back and fix
every static lib to be built with PIC to prevent RELOC 24 error messages
all over the place.
At least all of the Blackdown JDK and OOo shared libs are built fully with
-fPIC code or the builds will fails when linking.
On March 2, 2003 07:06 am, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:56:52AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I have checked in various changes and both TLS and non-TLS builds on
> > pass make check for me. I have made some changes to PPC64 code too,
> > not tested that.
> > I spent a while trying to figure out the right thing for the 16-bit
> > and then punted. I think these relocs are not produced in PIC code
> > with ld -shared. Is that right? Does the PPC32 or PPC64 ABI permit
> > non-PIC code in shared libraries? If not, then we don't need to handle
> At least PPC32 AFAIK permits non-PIC code in shared libraries. You
> cannot use usually too many such libraries because of the 24bit branch
> limitation then.