LIBGCC_SPEC

[Matt Austern]

On Feb 17, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:

> Matt Austern wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this comment is no longer true.  A target can indeed 
>> define LIBGCC_SPEC, but that definition is no longer used.  Instead, 
>> the LIBGCC_SPEC is munged by a function called init_gcc_specs.  There 
>> doesn't seem to be any way of turning the munging off (short of 
>> disabling shared libgcc entirely), which means that targets where the 
>> munged spec string is inappropriate are just out of luck.
>
> This seems a little confused.  LIBGCC_SPEC is used as intended, and 
> then it is munged in order to support some target independent 
> features, such as handling shared libgcc related options.

As Geoff said, I don't believe the "target independent" part.  The 
munging encodes specific library names and the way they correspond to 
specific options.  There are even comments in gcc.c saying that some of 
this is just guesswork and that it's probably wrong on some targets.

Munging spec strings strikes me as deeply wrong.  The whole point of 
target-overridable spec lines is that this is supposed to be under the 
control of individual targets.  As it, it's not.  The spec string you 
get is a complicated interaction between the one you write and the 
logic in gcc.c.  This is not a good place to be.

			--Matt