rengolin added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11153#209397, @logan wrote:
> Although it is difficult to use, we can remove the default libraries with > `-nostdlib`. This is what I am using when I am building different > configurations of libc++abi and libunwind on Linux. Right. In that case, I'd rather --rtlib=compiler-rt didn't include anything, and forced you to include your own libraries, instead of assuming a GNU environment. > For your long-term plan on the default standard library, I agree that we > should select the default standard library according to the environment. > However, I am still concerning the overloaded meaning for `-l` options. For > example, what will happen if the users specified `-lunwind` when they are > mean to link with libunwind[1] from Savannah? The libunwind from Savannah > does not include C++ level 1 unwinding library by default. That's a good point. That's why I didn't want to call our unwind libraries "libunwind". But that's also not an excuse to rely on string-match. I think that removing the automatic include of libgcc is the least problematic solution. Though it would be good to have an easier way to include unwind/eh libraries if detected, I'd rather do that on detection of presence, than on absence. This would be for another patch, of course. Do you agree I should remove the libgcc inclusions altogether? http://reviews.llvm.org/D11153 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
