This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: FAQ: how to build a statically-linked gcc?
- From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <blytkerchan at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <kleine-budde at gmx dot de>, "Wolcott, Ken (MED, Compuware)" <Ken dot Wolcott at med dot ge dot com>, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:03:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: FAQ: how to build a statically-linked gcc?
- References: <20031015170433.GA10769@timberwolf.dyndns.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310151639020.576-100000@ops2.one-point.com>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 04:49:16PM -0400, Jeff Sturm wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > Hmm - We should perhaps discuss what the --enable/disable-shared/static
> > switches are supposed to do......:) Should they affect the 'target' (the
> > bins gcc will generate) or the 'host' (the resultung gcc/g++)?
> I haven't read much of this thread, but I'm a bit surprised that
> anyone expects --disable-shared to do other than what is documented, i.e.
>
> gcc:
> --disable-shared don't provide a shared libgcc
> libstdc++-v3:
> --enable-shared=PKGS build shared libraries default=yes
> libjava:
> --enable-shared[=PKGS] build shared libraries [default=yes]
> libf2c:
> --enable-shared[=PKGS] build shared libraries [default=yes]
> libobjc:
> --enable-shared[=PKGS] build shared libraries [default=no]
>
> None of this suggests that any behavior resembling the `-static' compiler
> switch is intended.
Hmm.. probably because I have a bug somewhere in my head.. ;)
Severe cafeine deprivation..
sorry,
rlc
--
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.