https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #7 from Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net> --- (In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #6) > > > the discussion about names is probably more appropriate on the libc side > > Adam, do you agree? I agree with this statement, sure. But I don't agree that there's any point in having the discussion. Essentially, you're asking for one of two possible things here, as I see it: 1) We come up with a new set of interpreter paths, and have a --break-abi-with-alternate-paths build option, or 2) We don't come up with any list, and have a --break-abi-with-arbitrary-interpreter=/path option. I don't see how providing options that encourage users to shoot themselves so readily in their feet is a useful thing to do. Sure, 99% of users never build either gcc or glibc, and thus this is entirely hidden to them, but I still don't see why the 0.0001% that deeply care about moving the interpreter on their system can't just patch glibc and gcc in the two places necessary to make that happen, rather than publishing a config interface that makes it look like a supportable option in the toolchains that define those ABIs.
