On 3/1/2011 6:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 03/01/2011 03:02 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2011 at 15:39, Daniel Reidy wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:58 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> that's actually not the intended use of the PIC USE flag, we wanted it originally
>>>> to enable configuring/compiling position independent code for packages where one
>>>> wanted to make a tradeoff between speed/security (i think php was one such app,
>>>> even without any hand written asm code).
>>>> so with USE=pic you were supposed to get a textrel free, but potentially slower
>>>> binary (partly because of the PIC overhead on i386 and partly because sometimes
>>>> it meant using the C implementation of some algo instead of hand written asm).
>>> So if I understand this correctly, we should now be turning off PIC on
>>> Gentoo-Hardened systems running on AMD64. What about the non-hardened
>>> variety, such as my desktop, that is only running a "stock" version of
>>> Gentoo Sources without hardened features?
>> USE=pic should have exactly 0 effect on amd64 because the arch and the ELF ABI
>> makes PIC zero cost basically. if some package manages to get around the rules
>> somehow, it's a bug in that package, treat it accordingly
> This was Zorry's point. So if it has no effect, why keep it? I say
> let's remove it.
There is no point in keeping it. This discussion has mostly been about
reassuring people with less intimate knowledge of the AMD64 ABI of that