5 ms·
> Not being a troll here... Why would anyone care unless they are writing a libc replacement? Statically compiling the libc is common with proprietary Linux so
by creshal 11y ago
> Not being a troll here... Why would anyone care unless they are writing a libc replacement?
Statically compiling the libc is common with proprietary Linux software, if I remember correctly.
- AdieuToLogic 11y agoGotcha. I guess it's an OS expectation thing then. In OS-X, it's pretty much an assumption that dynamic linking is what's going to happen (good or bad). Thanks for clarifying this point for me.
- justincormack 11y agoMore than that, static linking is very difficult indeed as there is not even a crt for static linking let alone libc.a, you would have to write your own.
- creshal 11y agoLinux userland has various libcs available (klibc, glibc, eglibc, uclibc, dietlibc, musl, …), with distributions occasionally switching between them, and ABI-incompatible changes happen every once in a while. Source-distributed software does not have to care usually, but for binary-only distribution, statically compiling the libc is the easiest bet. Thus, the kernel has to maintain compatibility.