[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: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Problem on rs6000-ibm-aix4.3.2.0 (Fortran) -DPIC
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:13:33 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Boehne, Robert schrieb:

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?

no, I can not. ;-O but that's perhaps gcc derivates are
used so widely in today's industry for special targets
which did wipe the old c89-type c compilers off the market.
In effect, I'm sure there _were_ some of those, but I can
not show you _an example_. (wasn't there notice that gcc
is going to ansi-c-fy its sources after all....yeah,
modern times...*g*), perhaps it's not worth to care
about ten years old compilers, that's quite right. Atleast,
_I_ wouldnt... :-)=8

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.  ;)

all of these instances are abuse of the current behaviour,
however I do doubt you want to change all of them. :-)=)
there are perhaps a bit a lot of them.

Actually, I can get away with having a bunch of autoconf'macros
around that can resurrect the old (or similar) behaviour for those
that  depend on differentiations for pic/non-pic and static-
compile / shared-compile. e.g. AC_ENABLE_SHARED(-DSHARED).

So instead of using an unwarranted behaviour it would need to
be made explicit in the source setup - and people would try
harder to use different options than these. It's surely the
existance of -DPIC on the commandline that made developers
to just pick it up, 'cause it's so easy and 'been around so
long. :-))

-- cheers, guido


-----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]