Why isn't all code compiled position independent?

It adds an indirection. With position independent code you have to load the address of your function and then jump to it. Normally the address of the function is already present in the instruction stream.

Yes there are performance reasons. Some accesses are effectively under another layer of indirection to get the absolute position in memory.

There is also the GOT (Global offset table) which stores offsets of global variables. To me, this just looks like an IAT fixup table, which is classified as position dependent by wikipedia and a few other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_independent_code

In addition to the accepted answer. One thing that hurts PIC code performance a lot is the lack of "IP relative addressing" on x86. With "IP relative addressing" you could ask for data that is X bytes from the current instruction pointer. This would make PIC code a lot simpler.

Jumps and calls, are usually EIP relative, so those don't really pose a problem. However, accessing data will require a little extra trickery. Sometimes, a register will be temporarily reserved as a "base pointer" to data that the code requires. For example, a common technique is to abuse the way calls work on x86:

call label_1.dd 0xdeadbeef.dd 0xfeedf00d.dd 0x11223344label_1:pop ebp            ; now ebp holds the address of the first dataword                   ; this works because the call pushes the **next**                   ; instructions address                   ; real code followsmov eax, [ebp + 4] ; for example i'm accessing the '0xfeedf00d' in a PIC way

This and other techniques add a layer of indirection to the data accesses. For example, the GOT (Global offset table) used by gcc compilers.

x86-64 added a "RIP relative" mode which makes things a lot simpler.