DJ Delorie wrote: >> I see -- but why did we set GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES? Don't we only do that >> when we've failed to link things? > > No, it's explicit:
I apologize; I didn't realize that. In that case, you're right; the current approach is just busted. It should become an --enable option, or a hard-coded case statement, or an autoconf test that doesn't require linking stuff. In my ideal world, we wouldn't set GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES because we'd be able to link by this point, but I guess it must be there to support exactly the kind of environment you're in. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
