I’m trying to make an executable that’s as portable as possible. After removing a few dependencies, I came across the following when running the binary on another system:
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by foob)
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by foob)
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by foob)
I’d prefer my binary not to require the user to upgrade their version of libc, so I’d like to remove this dependency as well.
The linker flags that produced the above binary already included
-static-libgcc -static-libstdc++. How come the binary still requires on the shared libc.so.6?
I tried adding the
-static flag as well, however when I try to run that binary the result is very strange:
$ ls -l foob
-rwxr-xr-x 1 claudiu claudiu 13278191 Oct 10 13:03 foob
bash: ./foob: No such file or directory
What to do?
$ file foob
foob: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24, BuildID[sha1]=5adee9a598b9261a29f1c7b0ffdadcfc72197cd7, not stripped
$ strace -f ./foob
execve("./foob", ["./foob"], [/* 64 vars */]) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
write(2, "strace: exec: No such file or di"..., 40strace: exec: No such file or directory
) = 40
exit_group(1) = ?
+++ exited with 1 +++
Interestingly, if I
ldd the version without
-static, it has two less entries than the version with
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007f4f420c1000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f4f41636000)
GNU libc is not designed to be statically linked. Important functions, e.g.
iconv, will malfunction or not work at all in a static binary. Arguably even worse, under some conditions a static binary will attempt to dynamically open and use
libc.so.6, even though the whole point of static linkage is to avoid such dependencies.
(This has been true for at least 15 years.)