No Fortran

[Craig Burley]

>> 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?
>
>Yes.  We have to, since the C++ libraries are mostly written in C++
>and we don't assume the user has a C++ compiler if we didn't just
>build one.

Ah.  Okay, that makes sense, at least for C++.  libg2c, AFAICT,
doesn't depend on anything other than gcc itself being built.

But, in theory, I suppose libg2c could be written in Fortran, and/or
depend on the Fortran compiler (f771) to generate configuration
info.  (I have done only enough thinking about the long-term
architecting of this to realize there are some sticky issues...
seemingly none of which currently apply.)

>Furthermore, even if we didn't, we shouldn't waste users' time
>building stuff when they thought they asked to exclude it.

Sounds good to me.

Can the libf2c directory use whatever solution is employed to avoid
building the C++ libraries -- is it general enough?  Does anybody
know?

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.

        tq vm, (burley)