Just to revive this ...
Andrew Haley said the following on 09/27/10 20:06:
In practice, it's often the other way round: static linking with
libgcc on GNU/Linux causes more problems than it solves. If we're not
linking statically with libgcc now, it would be risky to start doing
so again.
So the current situation is that if you build with gcc 3.x you will get
static linking and with 4.x you won't. This seems to me to be an
oversight when we moved to gcc 4 builds.
That said, the lack of static linking does not appear to have harmed
anything.
So do we just leave this as-is or try to rectify it?
David Holmes
I wonder if it's worth disabling such linking on distributions. Would
it lead to a significant reduction in footprint?
libgcc is a small library.
Andrew.
