amd64 and -fPIC

[Kris Kennaway]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:14:01AM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # kris at obsecurity.org / 2006-03-07 17:48:03 -0500:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:35:25PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > 
> > > > A generic port that only builds archive libraries better be PIC to
> > > > cover all bases. Performance cannot really be a concern when you're
> > > > working with generic parts. If performance is a concern, customization
> > > > is pretty much a given and the use of generic parts is almost always
> > > > abandoned.
> > > 
> > >     That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, except this version
> > >     is much better.
> > 
> > I like this version:
> > 
> > "Computers are basically fast enough, so let's not worry about
> > negative performance effects and just go for what is convenient for
> > developers instead".
> 
>     Ok, is there a compromise? Someone mentioned installing both PDC and
>     PIC versions under different names.

Yes, that would be fine (libfoo.a and libfoo_pic.a are the usual
conventions).

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060307/8c28bb86/attachment.bin