4 ms·
Gotcha. 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). Than
by AdieuToLogic 11y ago
Gotcha. 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.