Re: -fpic vs. -fPIC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Friday 28 November 2003 12:31 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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.

> Makefile.solaris is the only other place where gcc -fPIC is selected;
> should it be changed also?

If it is in Makefile.solaris, we would need to think about it, IMO.  -fpic is 
not guaranteed to work properly on SPARC; -fPIC is.  There was a reason it 
was put in Makefile.solaris, I'm sure.  Tracing its lineage shows it was in 
the very first template for Solaris.

The project lead for the Aurora SPARC Linux project is who recommended it in 
the first place; lessee, the last word we had on the subject was from Jakub:
>On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:15:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>> > readelf -WS thelibrary.so | sed -n 's/^.* \.got.*PROGBITS//p' | awk '{ 
>print $3 }'
>> > If the printed number is bigger than 0x2000, you need -fPIC, otherwise 
you
>> > should use -fpic.
>> 
>> Ah-hah.  And I would imagine that this number depends only on the number
>> of global symbols used in the library, and therefore will be the same on
>> every arch?
>
>Nope, it may differ accross arches (and not only because 32-bit vs. 64-bit,
>but on SPARC e.g. because there is no GOT relative relocation, so even
>static int i; int *foo (void) { return &i; } needs to allocate a .got slot
>for i.
>
>        Jakub

So, just because -fpic could work now is meaningless.  It could break silently 
in the future, for random .so's.  It would depend on the specific .so; get 
one that's large enough and you break.  It is SOP for the Aurora Linux 
distribution to use -fPIC for all .so builds, IIRC.  But testing of the GOT 
size would be needed on a .so by .so basis to make sure that everything 
worked.  And it might work for one compiler version and not another; Aurora 
Linux currently is built with gcc 2.96, but the move is afoot to go to gcc 3 
and be Fedora Core based.

So, I ask, why change something that is going to work every time to something 
that may very well break silently in the future? (yes, I know about the 
performance difference; is the increased performance worth the tradeoff?)
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu