Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

[Mike Melanson]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> * Mike Melanson wrote on Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 07:22:12PM CEST:
> > Is it possible to configure the autotools to force a static link of a 
> > particular libstdc++ library, ideally via an elegant solution in the 
> > Makefile.am file?
>
> I'm afraid you have to be more specific.  Are you speaking about g++ and
> its libstdc++ only?  Is this on GNU/Linux only (why on earth would you
> want to do that there?), or maybe AIX and libstdc++.a isn't static as
> you may think?  Are you using libtool?  (You are not trying to link
> libstdc++.a into a shared library, are you?)
>
> I think in general using a static libstdc++ (as shipped with GCC) is
> rarely a good idea.  IIRC there are or were some things that definitely 
> did not work (but I may be wrong on this); and also there is definitely
> a huge size overhead to the resulting binary.
>
> One way to force it with g++ is to
>  ./configure LDFLAGS=-static
>
> but that may be just a bit too broad for your...

It's possible that I'm chasing after the wrong solution. This is a more 
specific problem:

* I have a proprietary program that I am trying to build to run on a 
wide variety of Linux/x86-based distributions.

* The build process links against libstdc++.so.6 on the build machine.

* The program fails to run on older systems that only have libstdc++.so.5.

* Thus, I have been seeking to statically link libstdc++.so.6 inside the 
binary. Not sure if this is the right or optimal solution, though 
previous versions of this same program -- using an ad-hoc Makefile 
solution -- took this route.

--
        -Mike Melanson