LIBGCC_SPEC

[Matt Austern]

On Feb 17, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 15:05, Matt Austern wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I still haven't seen an explanation of why this is wrong for darwin.
> You need to explain what you want to do which the code does not already
> do, or which the code does wrong.  Otherwise, all of this is so 
> abstract
> that I can't understand your problem.

In the case of Darwin, the biggest problem is that -static and
-static-libgcc need to do completely different things.

Yes, this could be fixed by making init_gcc_spec more
complicated and making it know about Darwin's special
needs.  But gcc.c is not where target-specific knowledge
should reside.  The "target independent" logic for choosing
libraries based on the settings of flags just isn't as target
independent as it might have seemed.

			--Matt