1 |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Stroller |
3 |
> <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
|
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> OP should be doing everything he can to match the environment on both systems. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
|
10 |
> Since the problem is the same with dietlibc, glibc is not causing the |
11 |
> discrepancy. And my program doesn't use any other library besides the |
12 |
> C standard lib (glibc/dietlibc) and linux system calls. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Emerging gcc 4.9.1 now... I'll try compiling my program against |
15 |
> dietlibc, since replacing glibc seems scary. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
gcc 4.9.1, dietlibc-0.33 (no dependencies whatsoever); |
19 |
|
20 |
Gentoo: |
21 |
7011 (unstripped) |
22 |
4116 (stripped with sstrip) |
23 |
|
24 |
LFS: |
25 |
6207 (unstripped) |
26 |
3340 (stripped with sstrip) |
27 |
|
28 |
Could binutils have something to do with this? Trying that... |
29 |
|
30 |
Jorge Almeida |