Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 14.11.2008 19:54, ron minnich wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
We're missing one crucial piece which is necessary to get PIC to work: The linker. PIC code must be linked _after_ its location is known.
That sounds absurd as it would totally defeat the purpose of PIC.
It's position independent code exactly _because_ you can't know the position at link time.
actually, the GCC definiton of PIC is odd to say the least, as compared to what I used to call PIC.
Remember what Segher said: We're (ab)using gcc on x86 in a way that was never envisioned.
... when we were jumping to fixed non-pic compiled code outside of our pic scope.
I appreciate your scaremongering, but we should try not to confuse apples with pears when comparing apples and oranges.
Stefan