Re: No new 4th PATCH yet (was: Re: 3rd PATCH to pre-select languages to be built)

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <13878.58616.348287.67694@slsvhmt>you write:
  > I'm somewhat confused.  When I posted my 1st patch, everybody
  > complained to use a new argument to configure and let the configure
  > script enable/disable the appropriate stuff in the Makefiles. The
  > 2nd patch was actually only a small correction of the 1st one.
  > The 3rd one then tried to simply avoid doing stuff for languages
  > whose compilers weren't configured/built.
  > 
  > Now, you sound to me like ``let $(LANGUAGES) decide, what to
  > build, and then let the language's runtime libdirs Makefiles
  > decide at build-time, if anything at all ought to be done''.
  > Is that right?
You must have mis-understood me.

  > I'm asking, because I have a patch waiting in my outgoing queue, which
  > considers the comments I received after I sent the 3rd patch.  So,
  > what do we want to do now:
  > 
  >   1. Let the various configure{,.in} scripts munge the generated
  >      Makefiles to provide proper targets for the actually built
  >      compilers.
  > 
  > or
  > 
  >   2. Continue using $(LANGUAGES) (as we used to in the last years!),
  >      and fix the various Makefile.in's in the language's runtime
  >      libdirs to not do anything if the particular compiler isn't
  >      available.
2.

Or, have the have the language runtime configure code not configure
the runtime subdir if the compiler had not been built.  Ie, libf2c/configure
would peek in <objdir>/gcc to see if f771 was present.  If it was, then it
would proceed normally.  If f771 was not present, then the configure script
would exit with zero status without even writing a Makefile.

Consider a library configure script that wants to actually run the target
compiler -- if it wasn't built, then the configure script is going to
choke.

jeff