Re: Building _statically linked_ crosscompiler toolchain.

[John Carter <john dot carter at tait dot co dot nz>]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Brian Dessent wrote:

> John Carter wrote:
>
> > The question is "What is The One True Way (or any blooming way) to
> > build a _completely_ statically linked gcc crosscompiler toolchain?"
>
> I think you'll find that there is never a "One True Way" for anything
> when dealing with toolchains.

Sigh! Too Horribly True.


> I could be wrong, but if you configure with --disable-shared, that will
> apply both to the toolchain as well as the target libraries, which is
> certainly not what you want.  I.e. you don't want to deprive your target
> machine of a shared libstdc++, libgcc, etc. just because of host machine
> environment variances.

a. It certainly _is_ what I want... The target system is a tiny
   embedded device where everything _must_ be statically linked.

b. No, it doesn't solve the problem of sharing the built toolchain
   with my colleagues.

> It sounds like attempting to make the entire toolchain static is a bit
> of an overcompensation.  It's not like gcc and binutils have many
> host-library dependencies.

You only need one.

libc.

> If it's simply a matter of glibc symbol versioning then the solution is
> simply to build on the oldest system you intend to support.

ie. Build the biggest meanest package on the gnu planet on the oldest
slowest, smallest disk, ram system in the company. Sigh!

Even then, looking at the libc version numbers on the latest
greatest... I don't think that will work.

Hmm.

John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand