How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'?

How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'?

[Martin J. O'Riordan]

I am building Binutils v2.27, but need to have the executables linked
against the static 'libc.a' rather than the default which uses the dynamic
'libc.so'.

How can I instruct 'configure' to do this?  Is it even possible?

I have experimented with setting CFLAGS, CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD,
CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, LDFLAGS, LDFLAGS_FOR_BUILD and LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET to
'-static' and/or '-static-libgcc' but 'ldd' still shows the executables as
being bound to '/lib64/libc.so.6'.

My build system is "CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503" and the installed version
of GCC is "gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4)".

Thanks,

	MartinO

Re: How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'?

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Martin,

> How can I instruct 'configure' to do this?  Is it even possible?

No!  I was surprised to find this out, but it seems that the configure
and build system really does not want you to link with a static C library.

You can do it by hand of course, but that does not make for a reproducible build.
You can edit the makefiles too, but again this is not reliable in the long term.

Sorry - it looks like there is no easy solution to this problem.

Cheers
  Nick

Re: How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'?

[Martin O'Riordan]

On 4 May 2017 at 08:06, Martin O'Riordan <martin.oriordan@movidius.com> wrote:
> Thanks Nick,
>
> Good to know that I wasn't stumped over something simple that I should've
> spotted.  My goal was to statically link the whole tool-chain, but reckoned
> I'd better get Binutils figured out before I tackled Gcc.  I won't make and
> hand-written changes, as you say, this is not reliable or future proof.
>
> All the best,
>
> MartinO
>
>
> On 2 May 2017 at 16:51, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> > How can I instruct 'configure' to do this?  Is it even possible?
>>
>> No!  I was surprised to find this out, but it seems that the configure
>> and build system really does not want you to link with a static C library.
>>
>> You can do it by hand of course, but that does not make for a reproducible
>> build.
>> You can edit the makefiles too, but again this is not reliable in the long
>> term.
>>
>> Sorry - it looks like there is no easy solution to this problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>>   Nick
>>
>>
>