Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:08:01 -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: <40395271.3030907@citlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20040223001252.GA79774@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> <40393E7C.2000300@citlink.net> <20040223001252.GA79774@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>That makes no sense. >> >> > >Just not to you. You even use this in your argument by differentiating >between intra- and inter-section addressing. The reason my words do not >make sense to you is that you map it onto your own point of view as if >we're approaching this from the same angle, but all you're seeing is >the mismatch between my words and your PoV. > >I suggest you step away from depicting the final code when you >implicitly do away with all the uncertainties that a compiler needs >to work with, to which the -fPIC applies anyway and how it affects >the behaviour of the compiler. > > > Most of the compilers I've dealt with on other platforms had no trouble dealing with intra versus inter-section addressing. Guess that's what's giving me the trouble seeing it from your end. It's also the reason I prefer to work in assembly language. If the compiler has a problem dealing with it, I sure don't. With assembly, it does EXACTLY what I want it to. I'll just accept what you say and chalk it up to limitations in the method currently used for cpu-independent compilation. Thanks for helping try to get me straight on this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40395271.3030907>