Re: statically linked gcc executables

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Angelo Leto wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 7:53 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I do sympathize, but I think you're doing the wrong thing.  Yes, you are
> > going to have to have two versions of your gcc binaries, one with
> > ld-linux.so.2 and one with ld-linux.so.1, but that should be all.
>
> no, there are diffences in symbols between the ld-linux.so.2 coming
> from libc6 2.3.6 (debian 4.0) and the
> ld-linux.so.2 coming e.g. from gentoo

> (http://distfiles.gentoo.org/distfiles/glibc-2.6.1.tar.bz2) but the
> same thing append also with a newer debian version.
> This difference may be due to different building flags, patches ....

Indeed.

Ian Taylor's suggestion of a chroot is sound, because it solves all of the
library and include file problems too.  You would have a complete environment
that you could move around.

Anyway, it now sounds like you have something that works for you.

Andrew.