Why a specific gcc runtime is needed?

[Kai Ruottu]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>  > Lin George <george4academic@yahoo.com> writes:
>  > 
>  > > Do you think to link with static libc is a solution?
>
> For an alternative view, see 
> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html
>   
With Solaris2 linking statically is never recommended...

The memory maybe isn't that expensive nowadays, but I would still prefer a
"hello world" in C taking only 20-30 kbytes or less when linked 
statically in a
"PC-Unix" system like Linux, not 200-300 kbytes...  Big apps maybe doesn't
matter, although everything from the 'libc.a' and 'libm.a' would be 
taken with,
the code in the user application would take the biggest share...

So producing small "Unix-model" tools as static apps doesn't sound so sane.
One really has nothing to complain about those dynamically linked apps...

Maybe Mr.Drepper isn't so proud about the static-linking properties with 
glibc?
Anyone who can compare a statically linked "hello world"-level 
application for
SVR4 or SVR5 or FreeBSD or OpenBSD and its equivalent in Linux, will see
the big difference.