This is the mail archive of the
java-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: "This configuration is not supported ..."
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
- Subject: Re: "This configuration is not supported ..."
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 13 Jan 2001 01:06:28 -0200
- Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <200101130004.QAA26868@racerx.synopsys.com><orzogwfaw2.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><3A5FC33C.23C4839@albatross.co.nz>
On Jan 13, 2001, Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> wrote:
>> Anyway, even after this change, you'll still see that libchill is
>> disabled, because the Chill language is disabled by default. Maybe
>> languages disabled by default shouldn't cause such a message to be
>> printed?
> Sounds reasonable to me. The "configuration not supported" message
> certainly doesn't seem appropriate for the libgcj case...
As soon as it starts to be disabled on a per-platform basis, it will
certainly be appropriate. Meanwhile, even if I changed the top-level
configure so as to not warn about languages disabled by default in
their config-lang.in (as is the case of CHILL), this wouldn't affect
Java, because the mechanism I suggested to have it disabled wasn't
used. Instead, it was explicitly added to noconfigdirs, which
triggers the warning. Had it been added to skipdirs (which is what
I'm inclined to do in case of a language disabled by default), no
warning would have been printed.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me