This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: No Fortran
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
- Subject: Re: No Fortran
- From: Craig Burley <burley at gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com, law at cygnus dot com
- Cc: burley at gnu dot org
>Craig, I'm also sending this directly to you, as it seems you developed
>that feature back then.
I'm still not entirely sure that we should avoid building libg2c
even when `f77' is not in the list of languages. Do we avoid
building the C++ libraries when "c++" isn't in that list?
The reason I ask is, just because g77 (and f771) don't get built
doesn't mean users won't want, or be able to, use a libg2c that
gets built with it:
f2c foo.f
gcc foo.c -lg2c -lm
Also, looking at egcs 1.1a, I don't see evidence that the libraries
get built with *any* definition of the LANGUAGES macro in place.
Maybe I'm wrong (I haven't tried it), or maybe this has changed
in the mainline. Otherwise, how could I implement this, other
than by having egcs/libf2c/Makefile.in test whether egcs/gcc/lang-f77
exists -- something that seems a bit questionable, though it might
work?
tq vm, (burley)