Re: using -static

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Marco Trudel wrote:
> David Daney wrote:
>
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > /home/Marco/.eclipse_workspace/GCC-source/libjava/gnu/classpath/natSystemProperties.cc:97: 
> > >  > warning: Using 'getpwuid_r' in statically linked applications 
> > > requires  > at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version 
> > > used for linking
> > >  > 
> > > /home/Marco/Desktop/compile-lin-lin/gcc-4.2.0-lin-lin/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.0/../../../libgcj.a(natInetAddress.o): 
> > >  > In function `hidden alias for JArray<java::net::InetAddress*>*  > 
> > > java::net::InetAddress::lookup(java::lang::String*,  > 
> > > java::net::InetAddress*, bool)':
> > >  > java/net/natInetAddress.cc:206: warning: Using 'gethostbyaddr_r' 
> > > in  > statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared 
> > > libraries  > from the glibc version used for linking
> > >  > java/net/natInetAddress.cc:153: warning: Using 'gethostbyname_r' 
> > > in  > statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared 
> > > libraries  > from the glibc version used for linking
> > >  >  > This warnings occur when compiling a simple 
> > > System.out.println("hello")  > application with "-static".
> > >
> > > That's interesting.  It tells you that you really shouldn't link
> > > statically against libc, but I don't think that's news.
> > >   
> >
> > Certainly it is not new news.  I might suggest the shiny new (4.2 
> > only) -static-libgcj compile time option as an alternative.
>
>
> That requires the lib "libgcc_s.so" at runtime, but I think that's fine.

-static-libgcc will change that.

> > As time passes, libgcj is doing more and more dynamic linking.  A 
> > static libc does not work well with dynamic linking.  Static linking 
> > against libc really only makes sense in the situation where there is 
> > only a single executable image running in the entire system (ala 
> > busybox).  Unless you are working on small embedded systems, it is 
> > almost always the wrong thing to do.
>
>
> I'm not very familiar with this topic, so I don't understand everything 
> you and Andrew told me. So I would summarize like this:
>
> I shouldn't use "-static", because it does some nasty dynamic/static 
> linking stuff. I could use -static-libgcj, that does more or less the 
> same as using a --disable-shared built gcj?!

I think you are correct.  You might also take a look at the wiki article 
on static linking of libgcj.