LIBGCC_SPEC

[Jim Wilson]

On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 16:49, Matt Austern wrote:
> Again, I'd be surprised if Darwin was the only system where the
> logic in the spec string created by init_gcc_spec is inappropriate.

We are having this discussion precisely because Darwin is the only
system for which anyone has claimed that it is wrong.

And as yet, you haven't produced any evidence that I can understand that
proves it is wrong for Darwin.

This is getting exasperating for me.  If you can't report any actual
bug, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

> I've already posted a patch to allow targets to override the default
> version of LIBGCC_SPEC in a way that's immune to init_gcc_spec's
> rewriting.

There was no patch posted as part of this thread, nor was there any
patch referred to in this thread.  So I do not know what patch you are
referring to.  It is possible that I haven't seen it yet, or that I
skipped past it, or deferred it, etc.  With hundreds of messages posted
to multiple mailing lists every day, it isn't safe to assume that anyone
has seen any particular message in a different thread on a different
mailing list.

I see that there is a patch on the gcc-patches list, but from my point
of view it is no help.  There is no explanation of why darwin needs
this.  In particular, there is no sample definition of REAL_LIBGCC_SPEC
which would demonstrate by example why it is useful.

In any case, I see that Geoff has already approved the patch, so it
appears that the problem is already solved.  So why are you wasting my
time discussing a problem that has already been solved?  You should have
just told me that it had already been solved.
-- 
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com