From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16859 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2011 20:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16846 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2011 20:22:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:22:12 +0000 Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.85]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p54KMChX013425 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:22:12 -0700 Received: from pwi16 (pwi16.prod.google.com [10.241.219.16]) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p54KMAo9003340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:22:10 -0700 Received: by pwi16 with SMTP id 16so2114119pwi.35 for ; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.17.65 with SMTP id m1mr1370565pbd.70.1307218929594; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com ([216.239.45.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p5sm2446193pbk.36.2011.06.04.13.22.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:22:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: "Bill Cunningham" Cc: Subject: Re: gcc without ld.so References: <000301cc22ee$1ff51ce0$a9d3daad@YOUREDC1953E71> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <000301cc22ee$1ff51ce0$a9d3daad@YOUREDC1953E71> (Bill Cunningham's message of "Sat, 4 Jun 2011 15:32:21 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 "Bill Cunningham" 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