[fpc-devel][fpc-deve] fpc sparc port.

[Sergey Korshunoff]

Hello, Jonas!
You wrote to <fpc-devel at deadlock.et.tudelft.nl> on Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:24:58
+0100:

SK> In Linux DLL (*.so) can be made without PIC. In most cases this is
SK> even more preferable -- this DLL use less RAM. PIC may be needed
SK> only for glibc.so -- a wide used by _different_ programs DLL, in which
SK> case PIC give us a RAM saving. Reason: DLL in PIC format is bigger. If
SK> it not wide used (plugin for the only _one_  program ) -- we lost RAM
SK> and time if we use PIC format.

JM> Isn't PIC also necessary to support versioning? If you don't use PIC
JM> and you change a library, don't all programs that use that library have
JM> to be recompiled?

If we change a library (but not the interface of exported functions). then
we do not need to recompile any program. Versioning in Linux (glibc)
is supported by special option to linker: a list of function names which are
exported
in each version of library

SK> Conclusion: there is a big need in DLL support even without PIC.
SK> Why not implement generation of DLL and use of it with
SK> FPC made main program under Linux without PIC?

JM> If you use the "library" keyword, we already generate a .so file
JM> without PIC code, so I'm not sure what the problem is (I haven't tested
JM> such libraries rigorously, but simple ones seem to work).
JM> Jonas

Thry to link FPC-produced main program with FPC-produced *.so
library. In such case we can get a trap because insteed of calling
init code in  library (if we have initialization section for some library
unit)
we call main code initialization again.

With best regards, Sergey Korshunoff