| To: | "Chan, Sun C" <sun.c.chan@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Kratzer, Willi'" <Willi.Kratzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'pro64-support@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <pro64-support@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: auto-pic or non-auto-pic |
| From: | Jack Carter <jcarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:50:02 -0800 (PST) |
| In-reply-to: | "Chan, Sun C" <sun.c.chan@xxxxxxxxx> "RE: auto-pic or non-auto-pic" (Mar 30, 8:58am) |
| References: | <9287DC1579B0D411AA2F009027F44C3F042DF9C4@FMSMSX41> |
| Sender: | owner-pro64-support@xxxxxxxxxxx |
I thought the golden age of ia64 ELF ABI was to have only PIC? The non-shared options were there only to get things moving until dso's came on the scene. We have dso support now so why are we still allowing non-shared objects? If the first assumption I stated is correct then the longer we tolerate the non-shared objects to proliferate then the messier things will get in the future because archives tend to linger around forever. Jack |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | creating a feedback mechanism, A. Cameron Macdonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: auto-pic or non-auto-pic, Chan, Sun C |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: auto-pic or non-auto-pic, Chan, Sun C |
| Next by Thread: | RE: auto-pic or non-auto-pic, Douglas Johnson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |