* acinclude.m4 (grub_CHECK_PIC): New test.

* configure.ac: Add -fno-PIC to TARGET_CFLAGS if -fPIC is default.

ChangeLog

@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2012-02-29  Vladimir Serbinenko  <phcoder@gmail.com>
+
+	* acinclude.m4 (grub_CHECK_PIC): New test.
+	* configure.ac: Add -fno-PIC to TARGET_CFLAGS if -fPIC is default.
+
 2012-02-29  Vladimir Serbinenko  <phcoder@gmail.com>
 
 	* include/grub/libgcc.h (__STDC_VERSION__): Define if it's not yet so

acinclude.m4

@@ -424,3 +424,31 @@ else
   AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
 [fi]
 ])
+
+dnl Check if the C compiler supports `-fPIC'.
+AC_DEFUN([grub_CHECK_PIC],[
+[# Position independent executable.
+pic_possible=yes]
+AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether `$CC' has `-fPIC' as default])
+# Is this a reliable test case?
+AC_LANG_CONFTEST([AC_LANG_SOURCE([[
+#ifdef __PIC__
+int main() {
+	return 0;
+}
+#else
+#error NO __PIC__ DEFINED
+#endif
+]])])
+
+[# `$CC -c -o ...' might not be portable.  But, oh, well...  Is calling
+# `ac_compile' like this correct, after all?
+if eval "$ac_compile -S -o conftest.s" 2> /dev/null; then]
+  AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
+  [# Should we clear up other files as well, having called `AC_LANG_CONFTEST'?
+  rm -f conftest.s
+else
+  pic_possible=no]
+  AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
+[fi]
+])

configure.ac

@@ -596,6 +596,14 @@ if [ x"$pie_possible" = xyes ]; then
   TARGET_CFLAGS="$TARGET_CFLAGS -fno-PIE"
 fi]
 
+# Position independent executable.
+grub_CHECK_PIC
+[# Need that, because some distributions ship compilers that include
+# `-fPIC' in the default specs.
+if [ x"$pic_possible" = xyes ]; then
+  TARGET_CFLAGS="$TARGET_CFLAGS -fno-PIC"
+fi]
+
 # Smashing stack protector.
 grub_CHECK_STACK_PROTECTOR
 # Need that, because some distributions ship compilers that include