* Statically compiling gcc
@ 2010-07-28 13:48 Andy Gibbs
2010-07-28 14:06 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Gibbs @ 2010-07-28 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Hi,
Is it possible to compile gcc itself statically, i.e. without any library
dependencies? I have compiled gcc on my local machine, but it is linked
against eglibc 2.11, but the build server we use has eglibc 2.3.6 instead so
when copying gcc across, it doesn't run. At this time, we don't want to
upgrade libc on an otherwise working server.
I know it is possible to do Canadian cross-compiles, but I haven't managed
to get this to work. Therefore I was wondering if I can simply statically
compile gcc instead? Searching google and the gcc documentation just brings
up a lot of stuff about using gcc to staticially compile other applications,
not statically compiling gcc itself!
Cheers
Andy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Statically compiling gcc
2010-07-28 13:48 Statically compiling gcc Andy Gibbs
@ 2010-07-28 14:06 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-07-28 14:11 ` Andy Gibbs
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2010-07-28 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Gibbs; +Cc: gcc-help
"Andy Gibbs" <andyg1001@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> Is it possible to compile gcc itself statically, i.e. without any
> library dependencies? I have compiled gcc on my local machine, but it
> is linked against eglibc 2.11, but the build server we use has eglibc
> 2.3.6 instead so when copying gcc across, it doesn't run. At this
> time, we don't want to upgrade libc on an otherwise working server.
>
> I know it is possible to do Canadian cross-compiles, but I haven't
> managed to get this to work. Therefore I was wondering if I can
> simply statically compile gcc instead? Searching google and the gcc
> documentation just brings up a lot of stuff about using gcc to
> staticially compile other applications, not statically compiling gcc
> itself!
It would probably work if you build gcc with
make BOOT_LDFLAGS=-static
I haven't tried it, though.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Statically compiling gcc
2010-07-28 14:06 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2010-07-28 14:11 ` Andy Gibbs
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Gibbs @ 2010-07-28 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:42 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> It would probably work if you build gcc with
>
> make BOOT_LDFLAGS=-static
>
> I haven't tried it, though.
>
Thanks - I'll give it a go!
Cheers
Andy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-28 14:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-07-28 13:48 Statically compiling gcc Andy Gibbs
2010-07-28 14:06 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-07-28 14:11 ` Andy Gibbs
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).