No Fortran

Ken Raeburn
Tue Sep 15 14:14:00 GMT 1998

Marc Espie <> writes:

> >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
> Seems valid to me, but then, I would say that we need a feature to 
> enable/disable specific libraries AND corresponding comments in the
> INSTALL directive... Say something like 
> LANGUAGES="c++ chill f77 libf2c libstdc++" as a full list, with some
> dependencies that get trigerred automatically (building f77  triggers
> lib2fc).

Why should f77 always imply libf2c (or libg2c or whatever)?  Maybe I
want f771 so I can generate object code, but I want to use my own
support library....

I think these should just be ignored.  IMHO we're providing a full
compiler suite with runtime support (ignoring for the moment the fact
that binutils isn't included), not a random assortment of programs and
libraries to be built on an ad-hoc basis.  Build the front end and the
libraries if the language is desired, and neither if it's not....

More information about the Gcc mailing list