> (e.g. not being able to run an executable that was created on a more recent Linux system on an older Linux system even when the program doesn't access any new glibc entry points - the usually adviced solution is to link with an older glibc version, but that's also not trivial, unless you use the Zig toolchain).

In the era of containers, I do not understand why this is "Not trivial". I could do it with even a chroot.

▲

throwaway2046 an hour ago | parent [-]

Linking against an older glibc means setting up an older distribution and accepting all the outdated toolchains and libraries that come with it. Need to upgrade? Get ready to compile everything from source and possibly bootstrap a toolchain. I wouldn't call this trivial.

The fact that you need to use a container/chroot on Linux in the first place makes the process non trivial, when all you have to do on Windows is click a button or two.

	▲	AshamedCaptain an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Wouldn't you target whatever is the minimum "supported" glibc you want to run in the first place? What is that you need to recompile? Chroot _is_ trivial. I actually use it for convenience, as I could also as well install the older toolchains directly on the newer system, but chroot is just plain easier. Maybe VS has a button where you can target whatever version MS fancies today ("for a limited time offer"), but what about _any other_ windows toolchain?