I just don't understand.
I'm to believe that gcc automatically links libc.a when invoking the gcc driver.
However, out of curiosity I wanted to link libc.a statically using -static, but I get;
ld: library not found for -lcrt0.o
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
I just don't understand? Also, whats crt0?
I've also read posts saying to never statically link libc.a ; why? From what I've read (admittedly I'm just an undergrad), I don't see the drawbacks in linking statically..
I read this post which told me to add -lc which seems to compile correctly, but is this statically linking or just adding libc.dylib ?
Additionally, anytime I use -static flag, I get the same error returned from ld. I don't understand? The text I'm working through shows examples using a Unix environment, and since OS X is Unix-based, why am I having so many difficulties with my Mac?
Thanks, Zak
This is one of Apple's decisions about how libraries and development should work. They dissuade you from building static binaries by making it as difficult as possible.
There's some weak-sauce explanation available here on http://developer.apple.com/, the useful tidbit is:
> If your project absolutely must create a statically linked binary,
> you can get the Csu (C startup) module from [Darwin][2] and try
> building crt0.o for yourself. Obviously, we won't support such an
> endeavor.
If you feel like you're swimming upstream, get used to it - because it won't get any easier with app sandboxing, signing, dyld changes, etc etc.
On the plus side, trying to do unix stuff on OSX is edgy and dangerous now.
A couple useful links for down the road:
http://reverse.put.as/2013/03/20/how-to-compile-gdb-in-mountain-lion-updated/ http://www.osxbook.com/