"Andy Gibbs" <andyg1001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
