[Development] how to reduce the relocation <-- Use static qt libraries

[Thiago Macieira]

On domingo, 29 de julho de 2012 10.12.50, song.7.liu at nokia.com wrote:
> > After changed with _protected_ visibility, that kind of relocation is
> > reduced, but I still don't know why more R_ARM_RELATIVE relocation
> > introduced.
> Answer my own question, that is because the loading address of the module
> needs to be added to know actual address of each virtual functions.
> 
> So for the qt(5), should we change all the exported symbol 's visibility to
> _protected_ ? Or is there still some exited use case to use _default_
> visibility ?

I have a pending patch that turns all Qt relocations to "protected". However, 
it cannot be enabled by default since it often runs into bugs in the linker. 
Protected visibility seems not to be tested properly, as the compiler and 
linker people have different interpretations on how it should be used.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
     Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
     Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120730/feca4761/attachment.sig>