Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

[Mike Melanson]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I don't think it is (and I didn't mean to imply that).  What I meant
> was: even modern systems usually have a libstdc++.so.5.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I see that I have some copies of 
libstdc++.so.5 running around on my system. I will have to check the 
situation on other versions.

The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that there is only 
one version of gcc (4.0.2) that is known to compile the codebase thus 
far (C++ developed for Win/Mac). If I install gcc 4.0.2 as a separate 
compiler on an older machine, I wonder if it will be an option to link 
to libstdc++.so.5? The compiler builds v6.

> A shared library containing non-PIC code will _not_ work on most
> systems.  For example, on x86_64, on ia64, and of course not on several
> non-GNU/Linux operating systems.  And the memory/speed tradeoff of
> having text relocations is not clear (it may be worse for both).
> Generally, I'd consider it ugly.

Fortunately, all we are targetting with this binary is Linux/x86 systems.

--
        -Mike Melanson