Can I do static linking in such a way that only gcc static libraries are linked. With -static option, all the libraries expected are of static in nature, whereas my product has 100 shared libs of its own and it is _not_ possible to have that static in nature. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Bartlett [mailto:johnnyb@eskimo.com] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 10:16 PM To: redhat-devel-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Gcc libraries Actually, I believe the load time can be faster on static linking, especially for C++ because it takes a lot of time for the linker to resolve those dynamic links. I could be mistaken, though. Jon On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, John wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Ajay Bansal wrote: > > > Hi All > > > > I am using gcc 3.2.1 for building my code. > > > > Now the end customer may not have the shared libs used by gcc like > > libstdc++so.5 etc. > > > > Can I ship these libraries along with the product? Or Do I have to > > follow some procedure > > read the licence that applies to gcc. You will find you can distribute > those libraries. If you do, you must also contract to supply the > source code etc (or just include it). > > However, I would be reluctant to install gcc and its libraries on any > system where it's not the standard compiler. > > You can also statically link your program with those libraries (you > still have that source problem), but that has other disadvantages: a. > Wasted disk space with duplicated code b. Longer startup times because > you force the system to load one copy of the library code for each > copy of the app. In contrast, if you use shared libraries (and > especially, the same version in use on the client's system), you need > load only one copy for the whole system. c. If there are bugs in the > RTL, then you will need to ship new versions of your code so you can > replace the RTL. In contrast, if you use the shared libraries, the > client can fix the problem by installing vendor fixes. > > I recommend you use the same version of gcc your client does. > > > -- > Please, reply only to the list. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Redhat-devel-list mailing list > Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list > _______________________________________________ Redhat-devel-list mailing list Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list _______________________________________________ Redhat-devel-list mailing list Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
