Re: -shared-libgcc vs -static-libgcc

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Feb 13, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> 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.

That's basically what I was hinting, yes: that this was a case where
it would make more sense to have a single flag with a -no-* option,
which is what we normally do if we're making a choice between
"do this", "don't do this", and "do this or not, whatever is the 
default".

But that's mostly a nitpick.  Mostly I just wanted to confirm that I
was right, that either we've got shared-libgcc or we don't, and that
I don't have to worry about weird corner cases where we might
have both or neither.

			--Matt