Re: compiling libgfortran statically

[Mary Haley <haley at ucar dot edu>]

Thanks Tomas. I had gfortran 4.4.0, but not the absolute
latest one. Once I upgraded this, the -static-libgfortran worked.
I haven't tried this every where yet. I have so many versions
of gfortran, and I assume it won't work with the older ones.

--Mary

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Thomas Blom wrote:

> Hi Mary,
>
> I'm no authority on this, but I do know there have been several threads
> about this precise issue, especially as it pertains to Darwin.  Look in the
> archives of this mailing list for a thread starting 12/23/08 titled:
> [patch, darwin] repost of a patch to make "-static-libgfortan" workHere is a
> link to the archive for that month:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12
>
> -thomas
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Mary Haley <haley@ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm responsible for building a rather large C and Fortran based
> > application on a number of different UNIX systems. We then provide
> > precompiled binaries to hundreds of users.
> >
> > Our users have all flavors of UNIX and versions of gcc/gfortran, so I
> > try to provide as many gcc/gfortran version combinations as I can.
> >
> > Users still run into problems, however, because if they don't have the
> > exact version of gcc/gfortran, they may run into the usual "can't find
> > libgfortran.so.x" error.
> >
> > Is there a way to build libgfortran statically? I do see a mention of
> > a "-static-libgfortran", but this doesn't seem to work everywhere (I
> > believe my Intel Mac was one such location). If this option isn't
> > available, is there another recommended method that will work across
> > various versions of gcc and gfortran?
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> >
> > --Mary