-shared-libgcc vs -static-libgcc

[Matt Austern]

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