* gcc without ld.so
@ 2011-06-04 19:33 Bill Cunningham
2011-06-04 20:22 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Is there a way to build a compiler without the binaries when run not
having to link with the dynamic linker? I wish to compile a new glibc and
don't want the compiler I build it with to be dependant on it. Would
the -static linker switch be what I'm looking for?
Bill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc without ld.so
2011-06-04 19:33 gcc without ld.so Bill Cunningham
@ 2011-06-04 20:22 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-06-04 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Cunningham; +Cc: gcc-help
"Bill Cunningham" <billcun@suddenlink.net> writes:
> Is there a way to build a compiler without the binaries when run
> not having to link with the dynamic linker? I wish to compile a new
> glibc and don't want the compiler I build it with to be dependant on
> it. Would the -static linker switch be what I'm looking for?
Yes: if you link with -static, then the dynamic linker will not be
required at runtime. While glibc frowns on static linking, it should
work for a program like gcc.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-04 20:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-04 19:33 gcc without ld.so Bill Cunningham
2011-06-04 20:22 ` Ian Lance Taylor
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).