static linking of libgcc on linux ?

Andrew Haley aph at
Mon Oct 18 08:29:45 UTC 2010

On 10/18/2010 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> 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
> anything.
> So do we just leave this as-is or try to rectify it?

Please leave it as it is.

We gcc maintainers moved from statically linking libgcc to making it a
dynamic library because of a library versioning problem.  If, in a
single process, two shared objects (or one shared object and a main
program) are linked against different versions of libgcc all manner of
things may break.


More information about the build-dev mailing list