On Dec 4,  5:35pm, thorpej@shagadelic.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.

christos