[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran) -DPIC

From: Boehne, Robert
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran) -DPIC
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:55:50 -0500


Can you show me an example of a situation where there is
pic and non-pic code created by a compiler that doesn't define
some preprocessor macro for PIC?
Then if you find one, does it support inline assembler?
I have a hard time believing there is anyone out there using
Libtool who is going to be burned if they change "PIC" to
"__PIC__ || __pic__" in their code, and we drop it entirely.
Maybe I'll volunteer to fix every instance that it would.  ;)


-----Original Message-----
From: Guido Draheim [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:51 AM
To: Boehne, Robert
Cc: Simon Richter; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran)

Boehne, Robert schrieb:
> IMHO, I have yet to see an example of how it could be useful
> to define "PIC" when it seems that the only way to make use of
> it is to have it surround severely implementation-specific stuff
> like inline assembler in which case the compiler _should_ be defining
> "__PIC__" or some similar symbol. 

I've abused it a number of times for "#ifdef SHARED", i.e. to
distinguish the current $COMPILE as being for .o/.a or some
.lo/.la/.so - how to mimic such without -DPIC?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]