In Linux on MIPS CPUs (MIPSEL32 to be precise), is it true that all userland SO's are supposed be position independent (PIC)? A cite from an authoritative source would be the the best.
How about Android?
My interest stems from this.
The situation with PIC code on Linux appears to be somewhat interesting. In the past (pre EGLIBC-2.9) all binaries on MIPS where supposed to be PIC (both applications and shared libraries). However, to reduce the size of applications, the ABI extension was developed to allow for non-PIC executables (but shared objects stay PIC, as before):
At this time we do not propose any change to the position-independent addressing conventions used by shared objects. Similarly, position-independent executables compiled with '-fpie' -- as required for address space randomisation in "hardened" Linux distributions -- shall continue to use the existing psABI addressing and calling mechanisms.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-07/txt00000.txt
The wiki page on linux-mips.org stating that all binaries on MIPS must be PIC appears to be somewhat out of date, as both recent GCC and EGLIBC on Linux support non-PIC executables: http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/PIC_code
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20413290/is-all-mips-code-on-linux-supposed-to-be-pic