On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 07:11:16PM +0000, Tim Wilkinson wrote:
> So here's my basic problem. GCC, Binutils and GLIBC don't really agree about
> PIC nature of code. GCC seems to default to PIC unless you say -no-pic, but
> even then doesn't remove the -KPIC flag to the assembler. GLIBC requires the
> PIC symbol to be defined otherwise it uses non-pic assembly code which won't
> compile with the -KPIC flag to the assembler (there are also a bunch of
> linux/glibc compatiblity issues we won't get into right now).
>
> So my questions is - should GCC by default generate non-pic code or should it
> generate PIC code by default? If it generate PIC by default it needs to
> define PIC and __PIC__ ... but this will cause problems when building a
> static version of GLIBC (even though it's really a PIC version).
>
> I would want to do the following - gcc by default doesn't build PIC code,
> fix the -KPIC flag to be passed only when generating PIC code, and make a
> few minor changes to GLIBC to allow all this to happen.
You cannot mix pic and non-pic code on MIPS, so it must generate PIC code
by default and that is also pass PIC / __PIC__ / -KPIC by default. That's
what the real compilers (not the abortion in egcs-cvs) do.
That is static vs shared and pic vs. non-pic code are orthogonal issues
except that you cannot generate shared libs from non-pic code. They
always have been except that the way things are handled on other
architectures doesn't make recognizing this fact very important.
Ralf
