Why a specific gcc runtime is needed?

[Sven Eschenberg]

Hi there,

static libs usually have a '.a' extension on linux (can't comment on 
other platforms). On linux you will find a file glibc.a, which is 
basicly an archive of all the object files. During static compilation 
the compiler will select all the objects, that will be needed by the 
executeable, which in turn will be linked to the executeable by the 
linker ...

regards

-Sven


Lin George wrote:
> Thanks Ian.
>
>
> Do you think to link with static libc is a solution? I know how to link with a static library by using -static. My question is how to link with libc static library, because I have never done it before -- I think there must be something special for link with libc itself. I am wondering where is the location of the libc static lib? what should be the lib name, something like this -- all specific to libc itself.
>
> Any samples to refer?
>
>
> regards,
> George
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> To: Lin George <george4academic@yahoo.com>
> Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:11:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Why a specific gcc runtime is needed?
>
>
> Lin George <george4academic@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Why running a program on a specific platform (Linux), there are
>> runtime errors which mentions that specific LIBC runtime version is
>> required (for example, GLIBC_2.3.3).
>>
>> I think C runtime should be compatible (means using one version of
>> gcc to build a program, it should be able to run on platform which
>> contains another version of gcc runtime). I am not sure whether this
>> error is caused by some wrongly used compile/link options (which
>> binds this program to specific C runtime version)?
>>     
>
> As already noted, this is not a gcc issue.  It is a glibc issue.
> glibc and gcc are separate projects.
>
> I'll add that glibc is backward compatible: if you link against glibc
> version N, then you can run with glibc versions M >= N.  The problem
> you are encountering is that glibc is not in general forward
> compatible: you can not necessarily run on glibc versions M < N.  In
> those cases where the program will not work with an older version of
> glibc, you get a helpful error when the program starts, rather than a
> confusing error at runtime.
>
> It would be difficult to design a system which permitted full forward
> compatibility with interfaces as complex and efficient as the ones
> provided by glibc.  I don't personally have any idea how one might do
> it.  But it would definitely be a nice feature.
>
> Ian
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
>