Re: Issues building statically linked IOC

[Michael Davidsaver via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

On 10/18/22 07:16, Érico Nogueira Rolim wrote:
> On 17/10/2022 17:49, Michael Davidsaver wrote:
> > On 10/17/22 11:08, Érico Nogueira Rolim via Tech-talk wrote:
> > > Did I miss something about building a static IOC? Having to mess around
> > > in the epics-base files doesn't seem ideal... To cover all my bases, I
> > > also tried doing this on epics-base 7.0.7, which required the same steps
> > > to spit out a static executable.
> > The developers of glibc try to discourage completely static linking
> > as some parts of libc.so will implicitly try to load plugin libraries
> > for things like user account database and hostname lookup.  There are
> > also some hardcoded paths which distro libraries may have changed.
>
> I am aware of the glibc stance, but IMHO that's no reason for the build
> system to keep me from building things statically myself. I'm not sure
> what the current progress on this is, but a built-in DNS resolver for
> statically linked applications was even being considered, seeing as
> statically linked binaries have their place and that was a rather large
> limitation for no good reason.
Of course "large limitation" is a matter of prospective :)
I guess at option like "STATIC_BUILD=REALLY" could be added.

> STATIC_LDLIBS_REALLY = -static
My only slight reservation is about adding yet another build system
option which would likely not get much testing.  Then again, we have
no shortage of these already, so what is one more?


> I'm interested in getting epics to work on musl libc as well (it just
> needs some handling around the <execinfo.h> bits iirc), which is
> statically linking friendly, and again the build system would be the
> only thing stopping that from working out of the box once the source
> issues are fixed.
Speaking of awareness of stances...

https://bugs.launchpad.net/epics-base/+bug/1892190

Since musl doesn't identify itself, you can define "__UCLIBC_MAJOR__"
as musl and uclibc have a similar set of idiosyncrasies.

> OP_SYS_CPPFLAGS += -D__UCLIBC_MAJOR__

> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57476533/why-is-statically-linking-glibc-discouraged
> >
> >
> > (the first google result for "glibc static linking")
> >
> > Of course, there are some cases where this may not practically be
> > avoided.  Such as you describe where (I assume) you don't have
> > access to the toolchain which was used to build the system libraries.
> >
> > In such a case I guess you will have to hope for the best!
> Aviso Legal: Esta mensagem e seus anexos podem conter informações confidenciais e/ou de uso restrito. Observe atentamente seu conteúdo e considere eventual consulta ao remetente antes de copiá-la, divulgá-la ou distribuí-la. Se você recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor avise o remetente e apague-a imediatamente.
>
> Disclaimer: This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Observe its content carefully and consider possible querying to the sender before copying, disclosing or distributing it. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.