This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LANGUAGES vs --enable-languages (was: Testsuite documentation)
- To: <obrien at NUXI dot com>, "Gerald Pfeifer" <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: LANGUAGES vs --enable-languages (was: Testsuite documentation)
- From: "Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:42:47 -0800
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <001a01c058eb$6e346420$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4> <Pine.BSF.4.30.0011280952040.8748-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20001204145239.B11541@relay.nuxi.com>
C is implied; it is built with any combination of languages specified, or none, or with LANGUAGES=C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>
To: "Gerald Pfeifer" <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: LANGUAGES vs --enable-languages (was: Testsuite documentation)
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Tim Prince wrote:
> > > I've been confused myself on the --enable-languages and where it is meant to
> > > work. Even if that is used, the LANGUAGES option is useful to avoid
> > > building those components which cause bootstrap to fail;
> >
> > This is exactly what --enable-languages is for, according.
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/install/>.
>
> Last I tried, I had trouble building only the C compiler from CVS
> sources. (you may remember our discussion on that) At the time doing
> the grep implies that only CHILL, c++, f77, java and objc are valid.
> Which could be taken to mean that the C compiler isn't.
>
> --
> -- David (obrien@NUXI.com)