1 |
Iirc there a bug in glibc that makes it almost impossible to create static |
2 |
binaries with it. I can't look the the sources of that info atm, but it be |
3 |
easily found with google. Do the other platforms you use gcc to build static |
4 |
binaries with use a different libc? |
5 |
On Dec 3, 2010 11:14 AM, "Grant Edwards" <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> On 2010-12-03, Jacob Todd <jaketodd422@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> Gotta love gcc! |
9 |
> |
10 |
> It's not gcc's fault. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I use gcc on other platforms to create static binaries and don't see |
13 |
> any noticable overhead. |
14 |
> |
15 |
>> If you want real static binaries on a unix-ish os, use plan 9. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Except that's not what I want. I want a static binary on Linux. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> -- |
20 |
> Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My Aunt MAUREEN was a |
21 |
> at military advisor to IKE & |
22 |
> gmail.com TINA TURNER!! |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |