Re: No Fortran

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

  In message <199809150720.DAA03225@melange.gnu.org>you write:
  > Can the libf2c directory use whatever solution is employed to avoid
  > building the C++ libraries -- is it general enough?  Does anybody
  > know?
Assuming we're actually handling this correctly for C++.  Maybe we
are, if so, we should try and use the same technique.

  > If not, perhaps, rather than testing for the existence of ../gcc/lang-f77,
  > testing for ../gcc/g77 or ../gcc/f771 would be more appropriate.
  > Somehow any of those tests feel like kludges, but offhand I can't
  > see any reason they wouldn't work, in the short term anyway.
I kind of liked that idea (see my earlier message)  It tests for
exactly the problem we want -- did the C++, Fortran, etc compiler
get built?  If not, don't try to build the runtime.

This kind of scheme works better if we ever have an option to
enable/disable a language at configure time.  ie --disable-chill
or something like that to disable the chill compiler, even if
it is in your source tree  and you don't remember LANGUAGES="..." :-)



jeff