Subject: Re: lib/37473 (Statically linked executables are much larger in -current)
To: None <gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, ad@NetBSD.org, firstname.lastname@example.org,>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 12/04/2007 12:49:43
On Dec 4, 5:35pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jason Thorpe) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: lib/37473 (Statically linked executables are much larger in -
| And we know for a fact that's the problem? A link map would be useful.
I believe so. Last time this happened was in ld.so...
| Of course, it's not clear that we should care that much about this
| problem. IMO, we should de-support statically-linked binaries (and
| make the .a versions optional installs).
Well, this is the way OS/X went, and it was a bitch for me to bootstrap
the emulation code because I could not build a statically linked binary.
Trying to get the emulation going with a dynamically linked binary was
a pain in the ass because too much stuff needed to go right before I
even started executing main(). Yes, this is a limited case and I agree
with you that we should make .a's optional in the install, but I would
hate to completely lose the ability to produce statically linked binaries
like OS/X has. There are still a few corner cases (installers, standalone
programs) that can benefit from static linking.