On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:05:40PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 07, Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 10.2. Libraries > > --------------- > > > > The shared version of a library must be compiled with `-fPIC', and the > > static version must not be. In other words, each source unit (`*.c', > > for example, for C files) will need to be compiled twice. > > > > hrm, but yeah of course, one could say that it's fine if a > > library compiled with -fPIC still contains non position > > independant code. :) > It's still not generally acceptable, but the policy does not reflect > current practice. > The idea is that PIC code is acceptable on architectures which can > support it (i386 and IIRC another one) *IF* there is a positive tradeoff > between the speed gain and the wasted RAM. > The most situation where non-PIC code is a good idea is a library > containing hand-optimized assembly code. It may still be possible to > rewrite it to be PIC without a major performance loss, but it would > probably take a lot of time.
Marco, what's your current feeling towards #175077 (non-PIC code in libdv) that you submitted back then when prelink entered Debian? It's a case of hand-optimized assembly in a multimedia lib, and here I've indeed tried (and failed miserably) to convert to position-independent assembly. Should we keep such bugs open, waiting for policy to be changed, downgrade them to wishlist, or simply close them unfixed? Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
