This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: PIC without shared libraries


> Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
> Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:41:21 +0100
> From: Philip Blundell <pb@nexus.co.uk>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently working on a port of libc to an embedded system.  We are using 
> ELF binaries and all user code (libraries and applications) is compiled with 
> -fPIC.  However, we don't wish to use shared libraries or dynamic linking so I 
> have configured with --disable-shared --enable-static-nss. 
> 
> The libc configure script detects that -fPIC is default and adds `-DPIC' to 
> the CPPFLAGS.  Unfortunately, it seems that in many cases the code is actually 
> using "#ifdef PIC" as a test for "is this a shared object", not for PIC per 
> se, and this causes things to go somewhat wrong.
> 
> I think we should either introduce a new macro that can be tested (say SHARED) 
> and use it instead of testing for PIC, or take out the configure clause that 
> defines PIC whenever -fPIC is in use.  I'm not sure which of these is the 
> right thing to do; does anybody have any comments?

It would be the first one.  There are a number of uses of PIC in the
assembler files that really mean PIC.

I think this came up before on this list, didn't it?

-- 
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@ozemail.com.au>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]