Static binaries with sdl

SDL Development
1

i have a gaming project i’m working on and i’d like to make binary
releases for linux, as well as source code releases.

i’m not really too sure how to go about doing a binary release, but i
know it involves linking a lot of static libraries into your code.

could somebody help me? i’d like to produce a static binary that
utilizes SDL 1.2.3, SDL_ttf (latest version) and SDL_image (latest
version).

how do i go about doing that? what’s the gcc command line? (sdl,
sdl_image, and sdl_ttf was installing the prefix /usr/local)

thanks for any help you guys can offer.–

2

Christopher Thielen wrote:

i have a gaming project i’m working on and i’d like to make binary
releases for linux, as well as source code releases.

i’m not really too sure how to go about doing a binary release, but i
know it involves linking a lot of static libraries into your code.

could somebody help me? i’d like to produce a static binary that
utilizes SDL 1.2.3, SDL_ttf (latest version) and SDL_image (latest
version).

how do i go about doing that? what’s the gcc command line? (sdl,
sdl_image, and sdl_ttf was installing the prefix /usr/local)

thanks for any help you guys can offer.

gcc -static …blah

that simple enough for linking?–
-==-
Jon Atkins
http://jcatki.2y.net/

3

Christopher Thielen wrote:

i have a gaming project i’m working on and i’d like to make binary
releases for linux, as well as source code releases.

i’m not really too sure how to go about doing a binary release, but i
know it involves linking a lot of static libraries into your code.

could somebody help me? i’d like to produce a static binary that
utilizes SDL 1.2.3, SDL_ttf (latest version) and SDL_image (latest
version).

how do i go about doing that? what’s the gcc command line? (sdl,
sdl_image, and sdl_ttf was installing the prefix /usr/local)

thanks for any help you guys can offer.

gcc -static …blah

that simple enough for linking?

You want a static lib that is link to SDL and other SDL base lib’s ???

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] static binaries with sdl

4

A few days ago I figured this out while browsing ‘Programming Linux
Games’. I’m still somewhat new to gcc and didn’t know that the linker
needs all required libs to come after the lib that requires it, so,
sdl_ttf and sdl_image before sdl, as well as freetype after sdl_ttf, and
so on. i got it to statically build, but my only problem now is that
building a static binary w/ gcc3 … it seems to make a dynamic link to
a gcc3 lib that doesn’t have a static vers … so, if anybody knows how
to get rid of that dependency when building static w/ gcc3, lemme know,
but until i figure that out, i’ll use gcc2.On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 10:11, Corey Carter wrote:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [SDL] static binaries with sdl

Christopher Thielen wrote:

i have a gaming project i’m working on and i’d like to make binary
releases for linux, as well as source code releases.

i’m not really too sure how to go about doing a binary release, but i
know it involves linking a lot of static libraries into your code.

could somebody help me? i’d like to produce a static binary that
utilizes SDL 1.2.3, SDL_ttf (latest version) and SDL_image (latest
version).

how do i go about doing that? what’s the gcc command line? (sdl,
sdl_image, and sdl_ttf was installing the prefix /usr/local)

thanks for any help you guys can offer.

gcc -static …blah

that simple enough for linking?

You want a static lib that is link to SDL and other SDL base lib’s ???

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

–

5

building a static binary w/ gcc3 … it seems to make a dynamic link to
a gcc3 lib that doesn’t have a static vers … so, if anybody knows how
to get rid of that dependency when building static w/ gcc3, lemme know,
but until i figure that out, i’ll use gcc2.

I haven’t trusted any gcc after 2.95.2 for releasing binaries.

You shouldn’t, either.

–ryan.

6

What is wrong with 2.95.3? its standard on MANY systems. Surely they
have fixed many
a 2.95.2 bug in 2.95.3 :). Of course some distributions like Yellow Dog
Linux and unstable or testing Debian use 2.95.4 [which AFAIK isn’t
released or planned at all by the gcc folk].

So why would I want to use 2.95.2On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 01:02 AM, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:

building a static binary w/ gcc3 … it seems to make a dynamic link to
a gcc3 lib that doesn’t have a static vers … so, if anybody knows how
to get rid of that dependency when building static w/ gcc3, lemme know,
but until i figure that out, i’ll use gcc2.

I haven’t trusted any gcc after 2.95.2 for releasing binaries.

You shouldn’t, either.

–ryan.

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

7

Debian uses 2.95.4 and 3.0.3. I know that Red Hat uses “2.96” (which
isn’t really) and I assume by now 3.0.x as well. I believe last I looked
I also saw 2.96 in Debian, but I am understanding it’s basically there for
Red Hat interoperability.On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:02:55AM -0500, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:

building a static binary w/ gcc3 … it seems to make a dynamic link to
a gcc3 lib that doesn’t have a static vers … so, if anybody knows how
to get rid of that dependency when building static w/ gcc3, lemme know,
but until i figure that out, i’ll use gcc2.

I haven’t trusted any gcc after 2.95.2 for releasing binaries.

You shouldn’t, either.

–
Joseph Carter Certified free software nut

  • knghtbrd is gone - zzz - messages will be snapped like wet towels at all
    of the people who have stolen the trademark knghtbrd away message
    ack
  • Coderjoe prepares to defend himself from wet messages

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020320/d2d93360/attachment.pgp

8

Eh, it isn’t? Here I go and abuse Red Hat for using a non-release of gcc
and Debian’s doing it too… =p Bleh, I use gcc 3.0.4 now myself. It
does seem to have some interesting Athlon optimizer bugs still, and I can
not say I’m pleased with the new things the compiler bitches about (no
newline at end of file, several macros which used to work but which
someone decided are no longer a good idea, etc…)

Mostly I use it because I’m looking for those Athlon optimizer bugs.On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:08:05AM -0600, David Leimbach wrote:

What is wrong with 2.95.3? its standard on MANY systems. Surely they
have fixed many
a 2.95.2 bug in 2.95.3 :). Of course some distributions like Yellow Dog
Linux and unstable or testing Debian use 2.95.4 [which AFAIK isn’t
released or planned at all by the gcc folk].

–
Joseph Carter No conceit in my family

“I keep my personal gpg data in a locked, lead safe in a vault
guarded by angry rednecks and their dawgs. Trespassers will be
violated, and all that…”

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020320/34fa0693/attachment.pgp