When I compile a module liek this:
gcc -shared -fPIC -o foobarbaz.so foo.o bar.o baz.o
I get this:
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
warning: creating a DT_TEXTREL in object.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 12 Jun 2006 17:07:24 -0700 "Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I compile a module liek this:
> gcc -shared -fPIC -o foobarbaz.so foo.o bar.o baz.o
> I get this:
> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
> warning: creating a DT_TEXTREL in object.

cool.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2006 17:07:24 -0700 "Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
> cool.
0.o
What kind of useless comment is that ?
Maybe I should have been clearer when I started the topic: why do I get
that warning and is it bad ?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> writes:

> Frank Cusack wrote: 
> 0.o
> What kind of useless comment is that ?

It rather fits the original post.

> Maybe I should have been clearer when I started the topic: why do I get
> that warning

You probably didn't compile foo.o, bar.o or baz.o with -fPIC like
you should have.

> and is it bad ?

Probably. DT_TEXTREL likely means that you have .text relocations
remaining, which will make your DSO "unsharead" as soon as it is
loaded into a process address space.

On some platforms (e.g. SPARC, x86_64) the linker will flat refuse
to build DSO from non-PIC code. On x86 the linker allows this.

This is the first time I see a warning about it. Which version of
linker produced that warning?

Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> "Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>
> It rather fits the original post.
> 
>
> You probably didn't compile foo.o, bar.o or baz.o with -fPIC like
> you should have.
> 
>
> Probably. DT_TEXTREL likely means that you have .text relocations
> remaining, which will make your DSO "unsharead" as soon as it is
> loaded into a process address space.
>
> On some platforms (e.g. SPARC, x86_64) the linker will flat refuse
> to build DSO from non-PIC code. On x86 the linker allows this.
>
> This is the first time I see a warning about it. Which version of
> linker produced that warning?
Well I'm using -fPIC
It's gcc version 3.4.6-r1
>
> Cheers,
> --
> In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
> Remove /-nsp/ for email.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> writes:

> Well I'm using -fPIC

Not likely. We can see that you use -fPIC at link time (when it
doesn't matter); but are you using it at *compile* time?

> It's gcc version 3.4.6-r1

You continue the pattern of supplying minimal and wrong info,
and you are unlikely to get good answers because of that.

I asked you: "which version of *linker* produced the warning?"
The version of gcc is irrelevant. Perhaps you don't understand
the difference between linker and compiler?

Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> "Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>
> Not likely. We can see that you use -fPIC at link time (when it
> doesn't matter); but are you using it at *compile* time?

Oh you need it when you compile too ?
That would explain it then
> 
>
> You continue the pattern of supplying minimal and wrong info,
> and you are unlikely to get good answers because of that.
>
> I asked you: "which version of *linker* produced the warning?"
> The version of gcc is irrelevant. Perhaps you don't understand
> the difference between linker and compiler?

Although it no longer matters as compiling with -fPIC fixed the
problem, it was GNU ld version 2.16.1
Sorry about the confusion
>
> Cheers,
> --
> In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
> Remove /-nsp/ for email.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1150180260.975427.192290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"Ykstort" <ykstortionist@gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: 
>
> Oh you need it when you compile too ?

When else would you need it?  -fPIC means "generate position-independent
code".  Since only the compiler generates code, it's meaningless any
other time.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]