------- Comment #4 from aeby at graeff dot com 2006-08-17 19:43 -------
A bug tracker is not the right place to discuss philosophy questions, so if
you'd like to continue the discussion, we should move over to e-mail or the gcj
mailing list (lookout for subject: "GCJ 4.1.1 and static linking - SEGV").
However, my answer to your (Andrew) question is:
- for portability: The binary I am building statically is supposed
to work out-of-the-box on as many machines as ever possible
- for stability: Some systems out there are known to have deficiencies,
i.e. Debian/woody came with a not completely thread-safe glibc, so
linking glibc statically solves these issues, too
- for reproducibility: ask users that complain about issues in
your software to try out the statically built version and if
the problem stops you know you've found another combination of
library versions your software does not work well with (or you
can confirm that your software, not the runtime environment
has a bug in the other case)
> It will almost not work for other cases.
I cannot confirm this. The project I'm trying to build statically with 4.1.1 is
built statically for years with earlier gcc versions with less problems than
the dynamic builds had ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28760
