* How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'? @ 2017-04-26 9:02 Martin J. O'Riordan 2017-05-02 15:51 ` Nick Clifton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Martin J. O'Riordan @ 2017-04-26 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'? 2017-04-26 9:02 How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'? Martin J. O'Riordan @ 2017-05-02 15:51 ` Nick Clifton [not found] ` <CAESLzoNHJu0v1mtVtGf+Fj+SJVZ=cVE4O4mbifP1Syh_S4M8bw@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Nick Clifton @ 2017-05-02 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin J. O'Riordan, binutils 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAESLzoNHJu0v1mtVtGf+Fj+SJVZ=cVE4O4mbifP1Syh_S4M8bw@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'? [not found] ` <CAESLzoNHJu0v1mtVtGf+Fj+SJVZ=cVE4O4mbifP1Syh_S4M8bw@mail.gmail.com> @ 2017-05-04 7:12 ` Martin O'Riordan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Martin O'Riordan @ 2017-05-04 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: binutils 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 >> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-04 7:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-04-26 9:02 How can I link the binutils using the static 'libc.a' instead of the dynamic 'libc.so'? Martin J. O'Riordan
2017-05-02 15:51 ` Nick Clifton
[not found] ` <CAESLzoNHJu0v1mtVtGf+Fj+SJVZ=cVE4O4mbifP1Syh_S4M8bw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-05-04 7:12 ` Martin O'Riordan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).