Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:42:52 -0700 From: Joseph Fenton <jlfenton@citlink.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFLAGS+= -fPIC per default? Message-ID: <40393E7C.2000300@citlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20040222231735.GA79618@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20040222185212.EB6BE16A4D1@hub.freebsd.org> <40391EC6.7010808@citlink.net> <20040222220210.GA54064@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <40393010.4090402@citlink.net> <20040222231735.GA79618@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>The fundamental property of PIC , besides the fact that it's a >>>complete misnomer, is that there are no relocations in the code >>>segment. >>> >>> >>> >>You just proved my statement true. PC-relative code contains no >>relocation for within a code section. How do you think that conditional >>branches work? They do PC-relative jumps inside the code section. >> >> > >You fail to see the point. PC relative relocations are not >guaranteed to be without relocation and hence are not by >definition PIC. > > > That makes no sense. Why would you relocate a PC-relative reference unless it was an access across sections? Do you mean to say that all Jcc <reladdr> opcodes are relocated? If not, then obviously PC-relative addresses are not always relocated and therefore suitable for PIC.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40393E7C.2000300>