On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> The new gcc visibility stuff gives you way of shrinking the symbol
> table and improving performance.
And you really should start with making use of static, which has
about the same effect, except that the visibility stuf
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:32:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... mixing -fpic and -fPIC libraries is a problem.
>
> Is it? I would think having two options would be essentially unworkable
> if so.
The thing is, on i386 it makes no difference, it's only o
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... mixing -fpic and -fPIC libraries is a problem.
Is it? I would think having two options would be essentially unworkable
if so.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: ex
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any
> > difference at all) is that the former is faster.
>
> I don't doubt that, but out of curiosity, considering that everyone else
> is using libtool, and libtool always uses -fPIC,
* Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any
> > difference at all) is that the former is faster.
>
> I don't doubt that, but out of curiosity, considering that everyone else
> is using libtool, and libtool a
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:49:40PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So far, we have tended to use -fpic to compile position-independent code
> until we have received some sort of overflow that forced the use of
> -fPIC. Since 8.0, the makefiles to build shared libraries are also
> available to
Tom Lane wrote:
> PL/Java is bigger than the whole backend?
No, it's not, but the backend is not compiled as position-independent.
> The reason for -fpic vs -fPIC (on the machines where it makes any
> difference at all) is that the former is faster.
I don't doubt that, but out of curiosity, cons
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So far, we have tended to use -fpic to compile position-independent code
> until we have received some sort of overflow that forced the use of
> -fPIC. Since 8.0, the makefiles to build shared libraries are also
> available to external modules thro
So far, we have tended to use -fpic to compile position-independent code
until we have received some sort of overflow that forced the use of
-fPIC. Since 8.0, the makefiles to build shared libraries are also
available to external modules through the pgxs system, so we cannot
exactly check anym
Greg Stark writes:
> My understanding was that at least on some platforms once you need -fPIC for
> some libraries you need to make sure they were all compiled with it. That
> means it's a pain if any libraries are provided compiled with -fpic because
> whenever find one that reaches that threshol
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, no, -fPIC does not appear to be required for libpq.
My understanding was that at least on some platforms once you need -fPIC for
some libraries you need to make sure they were all compiled with it. That
means it's a pain if any libraries are provide
On Saturday 29 November 2003 01:07 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The project lead for the Aurora SPARC Linux project is who recommended it
> > in the first place;
> We were told equally positively, by equally well-informed persons, that
> we should prefer -fpic i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The best I have been able to tell is that none of our .so's are anywhere
> >> near large enough to require -fPIC.
>
> > One question would be what happens when it fails? Does it fail visibly
> > so we would hear
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The best I have been able to tell is that none of our .so's are anywhere
>> near large enough to require -fPIC.
> One question would be what happens when it fails? Does it fail visibly
> so we would hear about it? If so, we can take
Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The project lead for the Aurora SPARC Linux project is who recommended it in
> > the first place;
>
> We were told equally positively, by equally well-informed persons, that
> we should prefer -fpic if at all possible.
>
> The best I h
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The project lead for the Aurora SPARC Linux project is who recommended it in
> the first place;
We were told equally positively, by equally well-informed persons, that
we should prefer -fpic if at all possible.
The best I have been able to tell is that no
On Friday 28 November 2003 12:31 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've tried building PostgreSQL with -fpic on Sparc and saw no problems.
> > So I suggest that we change back to -fpic until we get detailed evidence.
> Okay with me. It never struck me that we'
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've tried building PostgreSQL with -fpic on Sparc and saw no problems.
> So I suggest that we change back to -fpic until we get detailed evidence.
Okay with me. It never struck me that we'd really seen adequate
evidence that -fPIC was needed.
Makef
Late in the 7.4 release we've added a patch that changed -fpic to -fPIC
for Linux Sparc. We wanted to investigate that issue further later on.
I've tried building PostgreSQL with -fpic on Sparc and saw no problems.
So I suggest that we change back to -fpic until we get detailed evidence.
Any oth
19 matches
Mail list logo
