But how does non-PIC code where it is in memory? When I disassemble the
non-PIC version, the address space starts at 0 which must mean that the
linker relocates the code. Also, labels represent offsets if I
understand this correctly, which is also a relative address and not an
absolute. That's what I meant with that I don't fully understand why
these extra hoops are necessary.

On 03/16/11 20:23, Brian Raiter wrote:
>> I think I figured it out now. I used gcc to compile PIC for the C
>> switch statement and checked what it does. I don't fully understand
>> it to be honest, but it seems to do the job also for non PIC code.
> 
> Of course -- PIC code just means that the code doesn't assume it knows
> where it's located in memory, which for a shared-object library is a
> necessary thing. It does mean the code has to jump through a few more
> hoops, which is why the compiler doesn't make it the default.
> 
> b