Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

[Richard Sandiford]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Anyway, given that there have been objections to the patch generally,
>> I realise that the pre-approval is void.
>
> I think there's no controversy over the libstdc++ change, so let's put
> that in.  If nothing else, it makes the libstdc++ configury more
> self-consistent; if we decide to change the overall strategy, then we
> can do that all at once.

Well, Rask's patch would make the libstdc++ change unnecessary,
so it seems premature to change libstdc++ now.  (Not that I'm objecting
to anyone else doing it.  I'm just not comfortable doing it myself,
especially since, on its own, it doesn't affect any of "my" targets.)

Richard