Re: NO_OBJC patch

["R. Joseph Wright" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

> I left this out because I wanted to get buildworld working first.
> The interesting question are:
> a) Are this options (NO_OBJC and NO_FORTRAN) in use?
> b) If you use them, do you prefer a compiler without the support or only
> without the libs / frontends?
>
> The code is intentionally structured to allow the full removal of all
> parts, I'm just not sure wether we want this. Don't waste the time with
> a NO_CXX or NO_CPP option, the former doesn't work because we do use C++
> in our tree (groff!) and the later just isn't worth the effort for
> GCC 3.4.
>
> Joerg

I guess if you axed those options I wouldn't be too sad.  I only use 
them because I have a system which is fairly low on resources and it 
speeds up my build time if I don't include them.  Plus I don't use them.
What do you mean by a compiler without the support?  I don't understand 
how the compiler is structured exactly, I just assumed that if you 
didn't include the libs and frontends that's all there was to it.

--
(\_/)   Joseph
(o,o)  Those are my principles.  If you don't like them I have others.
()_()   --Groucho Marx
 " "