This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: ppc situation


> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:14:40 -0400
> From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> Cc: howarth@nitro.med.uc.edu, libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
> 
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 01:14:57PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:46:11 -0400
> > > From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 03:39:29PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >    If I understand the current situation with the powerpc arch
> > > > in glibc cvs, a number of programs will have to be patched to
> > > > compile with -fpic to work correctly including some of kde 2.1.1.
> > > > It appears that the stock 2.2.3 glibc release doesn't have this
> > > > problem but that the current cvs does since debian glibc 2.2.3-6
> > > > packages causes such breakage on debianppc. If the libc developers
> > > 
> > > Uh, use -fPIC, not -fpic. That is not a breakage in glibc.
> > 
> > They should be equivalent; the only differences are that -fpic has
> > more limitations on the size of the library, but generates faster
> > code.
> 
> I've not found that to always be the case. Occasioanlly you get some bad
> relocs when linking the library, when using -fPIC fixes things.

If these are real bugs, have you reported them?  I have heard nothing,
and since I'm the glibc, binutils, and gcc maintainer for powerpc,
I hope any reports would eventually get to me :-).

I believe when I last surveyed my system, there were no libraries that
were large enough to need -fPIC.  Of course, I don't have Mozilla
installed...

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]