why does g77 build?

[craig@jcb-sc.com]

>Alex Buell <alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Apr 1999 craig@jcb-sc.com wrote:
>>
>> > >When I returned to my screen I noticed that g77 was being built.
>> > >I didn't want to build g77.  The only compilers I want are the
>> > >C and C++ ones.
>> >
>> > Use the LANGUAGES macro instead.  I hope we fix, if we haven't
>> > already, --enable-languages for egcs 1.2, though....
>>
>> Tee-hee. Another one bitten by this (I got bit by this one 2 days
>ago!).
>> Yes, please do fix it for 1.2 so we can just enable the bits we want.
>I
>> think this system of doing things like this is MUCH more convienent
>and
>> easier to memorize.
>
>Please fix also unnecessary build of 'libf2c' when no 'f77' in
>LANGUAGES is specified. I caught it when built a crosscompiler for
>i386-*-vxworks target.
>(The problem was that for libf2c 'configure' failed at some point, but
>that's another story...)

As far as I can tell, it already works, in the development snapshots.
I just tried configuring --enable-languages=c, then building via
a straight build, and hardly anything Fortran-like happened, except:

Configuring in i686-pc-linux-gnu/libf2c
creating cache ./config.cache
checking for Cygwin environment... no
checking for mingw32 environment... no
checking for executable suffix... no
checking if compiler f771 has been built... no

Now, were you saying that the *development* version of egcs still
failed for you in this area, or that version 1.1.2 did?  If the
former, please submit a bug report; if the latter, that's because
--enable-languages apparently wasn't supported in that version.

So, I consider this issue closed for now, as things appear to be
working correctly.

BTW, I agree that it's better to put things like this at the configuration
step.  In fact, I think we're going to have to put specifying the
compiler there, and whether a bootstrap-build vs. straight-build is
desired there, as well, when we re-work the configury mess.

        tq vm, (burley)