On Jun 22, 2022, Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > It makes some sense to have the option named -nostdlib++ if a target > might add multiple libs (and/or make other changes) for linking C++.
if it was nostdlibc++, I'd agree. lib++ is not something that brings C++ to (my) mind. > (so, fo example, if libstdc++ were separate from libsupc++ I would > expect your use-case to wish to exclude both, not just libstdc++)? That's what the testcase requires, yes. IIRC there's another that would benefit from the ability to link with libsupc++, but not with libstdc++. > if GCC already has an option spelling, usually clang would follow that > - it does not seem unreasonable to reciprocate. Yeah, I suppose that makes sense, it's beneficial for users to avoid the cognitive overload of dealing with equivalent options with different spellings. I'll swallow my dislike for the spelling and change the patch to use -nostdlib++. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
