Re: -shared-libgcc vs -static-libgcc

["Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:

> 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.

Huh?  The two options are each other's negation.  I don't think there
is any -no-shared-libgcc or -no-static-libgcc option, which is the
only construal of what you're saying that makes any sense that I can
think of.

zw