On 24 Feb 2001, Steven Hazel wrote: > You can either list the required libraries on the command line by name > (ending in .a rather than .so to choose the static versions), or use > the "-static" command-line option (confusingly, "-static" is not the > opposite of "-shared" -- it means "link preferentially with static > libraries rather than shared libraries").
GCJ seems to ignore the -static flag when combined with -shared. :( (And it seems that static linking is totally borked, it errors with "undefined reference to `fwrite'" although a few weeks ago it worked...) I'll have to go dig through the GCJ docs and mailing lists to find the answer unless there is an alternative. > This is all in the gcc documentation, of course, but it takes like a > week and a half to RTFM, and I'd like to use the GCJ node before > then. :) > > I would encourage you not to statically link against your version of > glibc, as it could create problems for some users. glibc is a highly > system-defendant library. Unless you *know* that users aren't going > to have an adequate libc, avoid a static link to it. IMHO, it's > better to say "oh, and you'll need to upgrade your libc" than to hand > people a binary that includes a libc. Well I could certainly find someone to compile a version against glibc 2.0 as well. -- Mark Roberts mjr at statesmean.com _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
