On 23-Jun-99 Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> > I wouldn't mind an option to compile without -fPIC. I hardly ever run
>> > two programs that use Mesa at once, so I don't really care if the
>> > library has some dirty pages. (IIRC, -fPIC is around 5-10% slower.)
>> pic-code is faster for shared libraries.
>> If you don't like pic-code, use the static library.
> Umm, not exactly. PIC code loses a register and forces an extra jump in
> routine which reference other symbols in the pic library.
Well, I should better say:
In general, pic-code is faster for shared libraries, because
the dynamic linker doesn't need to resolve all the relocations
every time the program is run, and the library code can be shared
between several processes, which saves memory (and is the purpose of
shared libraries). So, why not simply link against the static library?
> It is possible to build a non-pic .so which is much more convient than
> linking to a static library --
That's not portable (trust me, I'm libtool maintainer).
Why is linking against a static library less convenient?
> you can't say './linuxquake3 +set r_glDriver libGL.a', for instance.
Josh didn't say that he wants to use it as a loadable driver.
Thomas Tanner -----------------------------------------
email: tanner@(ffii.org|gnu.org|ggi-project.org|gmx.de)
web: http://home.pages.de/~tanner
GGI/Picasso: http://picasso.ffii.org
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
