On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 4:29 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: > > 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.
Agree that clang --stdlib= and -nostdlib++ probably should be better named. There are many standard libraries and "stdlib" as a name isn't tied to C++ much. That said, --stdlib= has a very long history and seems not so necessary to change now. For new Clang driver options (I subscribe to clang/lib/Driver files to try catching up the change), I try to keep an eye on and for something useful which may be matched by GCC, I'll notify some GCC folks I know (e.g. Nathan, Martin). > > (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. Thanks. > 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++. Thanks:) BTW: even if -static-libstdc++ is a bit of misnomer when a clang user uses libc++, since -static-libc++ or -static-stdlib does not exist, they are still using -static-libstdc++. > -- > 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>
