amd64 and -fPIC

Roman Neuhauser neuhauser at
Tue Mar 7 23:14:03 UTC 2006

# kris at / 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. There *are* situations when
    linking a static library into a shared one is desirable, and it
    would be nice if ports catered for this usage as well (they do, as
    a side effect, on i386 now).
    Perhaps ld could then grow intelligence to transform
    ld -shared -static -lfoo
    ld -shared -static -lfoo_pic

    though I'm certainly out of my bailiwick here.

How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man.  You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE.   

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list