This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
-shared-libgcc vs -static-libgcc
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:33:13 -0800
- Subject: -shared-libgcc vs -static-libgcc
Here's what the documentation says about -shared-libgcc and
-static-libgcc:
"On systems that provide @file{libgcc} as a shared library, these
options force the use of either the shared or static version
respectively. If no shared version of @file{libgcc} was built when the
compiler was configured, these options have no effect."
Or to put it differently: shared-libgcc versus static-libgcc is a
binary choice. In some cases shared-libgcc is the default and in other
cases static-libgcc is the default. We must have either shared-libgcc
or static-gcc; it makes no sense to be neither, and it makes no sense
to be both.
The reason I'm harping on this: if you accept my paraphrase, then I
don't see why we have two switches instead of one. One switch is a
binary choice between two alternatives. Two switches is a choice
between four alternatives. We only need two switches if we want to
support neither-static-nor-shared or both-static-and-shared, and I
don't think we do.
Am I missing anything?
--Matt