This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

-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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]