In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:07:10 +0100, Andy
Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
appro> > appro> Should we check for "-.pic" also?
appro> >
appro> > I haven't seen any compiler with such a flag, yet...
appro>
appro> ??? What do you mean? All compilers support both -.PIC and
appro> -.pic! Or do you mean that you have interpreted . literally?
Let me rephrase that: I haven't seen a compiler the requires "-.pic"
and can't take "-.PIC".
appro> I ment . as an arbitrary character in regular expression and is
appro> it was depicted in awk command line...
Got that :-).
appro> > There was a specific reason for that: there were people who would link
appro> > routines from libcrypto.a into another shared library. If the
appro> > libcrypto.a routines weren't built with -fPIC, it broke badly.
appro>
appro> Those people probably should have been instructed to explicitely
appro> './config shared' then. After all, when libcrypto.so.0.x is likned,
appro> libcrypto.a is still around, isn't it? So what's the problem? But what
appro> do you mean "broke badly?" It's perfectly possible to use non-PIC code
appro> in a shared library. It kind of obsoletes the idea, but it *does* work.
appro> What might be broken is linking stage [exactly what this very ticket is
appro> about!], but not the run-time.
I honestly don't remember. It was a couple of years ago, and I don't
work there any more.
appro> So what do we say? Conditional -.PIC as proposed or unconditional as it
appro> used to be?
If conditional is better, go conditional. You're the expert here :-)
appro> > It also probably means that we should name libcrypto.a differently
appro> > when the included modules are compiled with -fPIC. Something like
appro> > libcrypto_pic.a. I've seen such practice elsewhere...
appro>
appro> Absolutely! A.
That will however be something for 0.9.8. There's been some requests
for production of both 32- and 64-bit variants as well, so I'm
thinking of introducing the possibility of building library variants.
That will also require that we have separate build directories and so
on, so that's a rather large job.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
