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]