static linking of libgcc on linux ?
David.Holmes at oracle.com
Sun Oct 17 23:51:33 UTC 2010
Just to revive this ...
Andrew Haley said the following on 09/27/10 20:06:
> In practice, it's often the other way round: static linking with
> libgcc on GNU/Linux causes more problems than it solves. If we're not
> linking statically with libgcc now, it would be risky to start doing
> so again.
So the current situation is that if you build with gcc 3.x you will get
static linking and with 4.x you won't. This seems to me to be an
oversight when we moved to gcc 4 builds.
That said, the lack of static linking does not appear to have harmed
So do we just leave this as-is or try to rectify it?
>> I wonder if it's worth disabling such linking on distributions. Would
>> it lead to a significant reduction in footprint?
> libgcc is a small library.
More information about the build-dev