Andy Polyakov

> > Because %PATH% takes precedence over auto-discovery [right?] Just in case, it was a genuine question. What I meant was rather "[as far as I understand] there is a...

While I know how to fix it, one can wonder what's up the `-static` flag to start with. Indeed, cc-rs produces .a files for rustc to link with, while from...

On a tangential note. As for "cc-rs never links anything." One can also argue that cc-rs shouldn't issue `-shared` flag either. For the same reason, it's a **link** flag to...

Just in case. Tracing the introduction of corresponding methods back suggests that it was triggered by a linking error suggesting to recompile with `-fPIC`. So one would expect `-static/-shared` to...

An additional note. gcc-3-ish did require `-fPIC` [passed at `-c` stage] for shared link, while contemporary gcc-s seem to always generate PIC. It actually takes an explicit `-fno-PIC` to prevent...

To summarize. The suggestion for resolution is to either no-op static_flag() and shared_flag() methods, or have them pass a suitable value to pic() method.

The remark is arguably a bit misleading in the context of the original query. Because it's about static_flag() and shared_flag() methods, while passing `-C target-feature=+crt-static` does **not** result in invoking...

> A concern I have is how many people in the wild are relying on it, though... cc-rs **always** calls the compiler with the `-c` flag on all the people-in-the-wild's...

My question is does it have to be that "selfish"? What I'm referring to is suggestion to make it exclusively about msvc. Why not `.compiler_if_available()` as a complement to the...

> straight gas syntax .S files. Well, formally speaking it doesn't qualify for making things less usable for everybody. I mean **no** overly specific and non-common case should. Well, at...