> Not OP, but it’s the only way I know how to get gcc to use a static glibc.

    /tmp$ gcc -O3 test.c -o test
    /tmp$ ldd test
     linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007f3d9fbfe000)
     libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f3d9f9e8000)
     /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f3d9fc00000)
    /tmp$ gcc -static -O3 test.c -o test
    /tmp$ ldd test
     not a dynamic executable

>> Not OP, but it’s the only way I know how to get gcc to use a static glibc.

> /tmp$ gcc -static -O3 test.c -o test /tmp$ ldd test not a dynamic executable

yes, that last line above means it's a statically linked executable.

yes, i had a doubt about what the GP said, about their nix way being the only way to create a statically linked executable.

but I didn't remember all the details, because it's been a while since I worked with C in depth (moved to Java, Ruby, Python, etc.)(though I did a lot of that earlier, even in pre-Linux years), so I didn't say anything else. thanks, Josh Triplett for clarifying.

but one thing I do remember, is that static linking was the only option in the beginning, at least on Unix, and dynamic linking came only some time later.

when I started working on UNIX and C, there was no dynamic linking at all, IIRC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_library

("dynamic linking" topic in above page links to the below page in Wikipedia: )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_linker

I thought glibc had some hacks in it to prevent it from working fully when statically linked? Is this just a myth or outdated or only affects C/C++ or what?