Re: RFC: generalize STARTFILE/ENDFILE_SPEC for linux

2006-01-09 Thread Peter S. Mazinger
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:38:17PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > for HAVE_ENDFILE_MATH and HAVE_NOSTARTFILE_STATIC another possibility > > would be > > %{static:%:if-exists-else(crtbeginT.o%s crtbegin.o%s)} > > %{ffast-math|funsafe-math-optimizatio

Re: RFC: generalize STARTFILE/ENDFILE_SPEC for linux

2006-01-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:38:17PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > for HAVE_ENDFILE_MATH and HAVE_NOSTARTFILE_STATIC another possibility > would be > %{static:%:if-exists-else(crtbeginT.o%s crtbegin.o%s)} > %{ffast-math|funsafe-math-optimizations:%:if-exists(crtfastmath.o%s)} That's IMHO a bad

RFC: generalize STARTFILE/ENDFILE_SPEC for linux

2006-01-09 Thread Peter S. Mazinger
Hello! Would the attached patch be acceptable? The gcc.c patch part should really go to gcc/config/linux.h, but sadly not all archs include that file. for HAVE_ENDFILE_MATH and HAVE_NOSTARTFILE_STATIC another possibility would be %{static:%:if-exists-else(crtbeginT.o%s crtbegin.o%s)} %{ffast-m