On Tue, 17 Feb 2026, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Would the following be more accurate and more descriptive?
> >
> > @opindex fno-link-libatomic
> > @opindex flink-libatomic
> > @item -flink-libatomic
> >
> > Link with libatomic. Enabled by default.
> >
> > The compiler will add options to link to libatomic when it is
> > supported by the target, so that the atomic operations defined by
> > the C and C++ standards work without requiring explicit action from
> > users. Typically this adds @option{-latomic} to the link command
> > line; for the GNU linker @option{--as-needed} is also used.
> > The negative form @option{-fno-link-libatomic} can be used to
> > explicitly disable linking of libatomic. The options
> > @option{-nodefaultlibs} and @option{-nostdlib} will also disable
> > linking to libatomic.
>
> I suppose my use of "disabling" still has exactly the problem I
> complained about above. Using -fno-link-libatomic doesn't disable
> linking to libatomic, nor does -nodefaultlibs. When those options are
> used, users can still add -latomic themselves and that will work, so
> it hasn't been *disabled*. What the -fno-link-libatomic option does is
> disable the *automatic* linking to libatomic, or the *implicit*
> linking to libatomic.
>
> So I think this could still do with some more wordsmithing.
One bit of wordsmithing would be that I think it's generally better to say
the compiler *does* something rather than "will" do it. So "adds options"
not "will add options", and likewise remove "will" in "will also disable"
(along with any change to avoid "disable" there).
--
Joseph S. Myers
[email protected]
