statically linked gcc executables

Angelo Leto angleto@gmail.com
Sat Jan 26 02:11:00 GMT 2008


On Jan 25, 2008 11:39 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

yes, thanks.
Angelo

>
> Andrew.
>



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list