On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:33 PM, chandra reddy <creddym@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Eljay, >> >> My requirement is not generate two executable outputs. I want do the >> following under a new command line option to gcc (new option is needed >> because it is unusual producing two object files in single compilation) >> >> I want to create libabc.a and libabc.so in the following way: >> >> $gcc <cflags> -c <new_option> -fpic a.c >> $gcc <cflags> -c <new_option> -fpic b.c >> $gcc <cflags> -c <new_option> -fpic c.c >> >> The output would be: a.o a.So b.o b.So c.o c.So >> where a.o b.o c.o will be generated with -fpic disabled >> a.So b.So c.So will be generated with -fpic enabled >> Now, >> >> I will create libabc.a and libabc.so like this. >> >> $ ar cq libabc a.o b.o c.o >> $ld -o libabc.so a.So b.So c.So >> >> I want this feature only to create object files not for executables. We have >> to create thousands of static and dynamic libraries with and without -fpic >> option. >> It helps us if the above feature can be achieved in the gcc compiler. >> >> I can see that until reaching the function call "expand_gimple_basic_block" >> in gcc compiler, the code flow is same with/without -fpic. After this >> function call tree would differ. > > It already differs before (see targetm.binds_local). Btw, if you just want to save compile time simply use the PIC objects in the static archive. Richard.
