Re: 3.1 bootstrap failure in libjava

[Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>]

> Please don't be hostile.  It doesn't help.  In fact, it took me a
> while to respond to this because I found I preferred to flame you than
> to help you.

You're right, I apologize.  And not for the first time on this list.

> The "java people", as you put it, aren't some
> undifferentiated mass of careless, thoughtless hacks.

I have been impressed with the attitude on these lists that is,
for the most part, "It doesn't matter who put in this bug, here is
how to fix it."  By referring to "the java people" I was trying to
follow this tradition, but I failed.  I don't see the java
folks as an "undifferentiated mass of careless, thoughtless hacks".

And you were right again, I use contrib/gcc_update to update my tree,
and the -d option is not the default in this script, so I added
it and got the new directory.

My irritation comes not from having a bad omelette for breakfast,
however.  It comes from my feeling (whether correct or not) that
changes to the java compiler and libraries cause more bootstrap
failures, historically, than changes to any other part of the compiler.
If I follow today's discussion correctly, and if I interpret the
make check results on solaris today, java was disabled by default
on several more platforms.  I think a technical argument can be made,
just from the point of view of an ignorant tester, that the Java
port is not ready for prime time.

So today this irritation was unwarranted and unhelpful, since I
jumped to the wrong conclusion, thinking that the disabling of
java on a few more platforms might have had something to do with the
problem I reported, or perhaps no-one answered my previous message
because, hell, java was scheduled to be disabled on solaris
anyway today.  All wrong, and I truly am sorry.

Brad