Re: No Fortran - IS ANYBODY WORKING ON IT?

[Manfred Hollstein <manfred at s-direktnet dot de>]

On Tue, 15 September 1998, 02:10:15, law@cygnus.com wrote:

 > 
 >   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="..." :-)

Is anybody working on this already? I'd like to implement this as I've
stumbled across this especially on my damn slow  68k machine (which is
- even worse  - using multilibs  :-(  ); but unfortunately  I'm rather
busy doing other things at the moment, I  guess I'll be having a patch
available in 1 to 2 weeks. OK?

manfred