Re: Patch: Remove fastjar

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 16:29 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>   
> > Ideally, I'd like to get rid of fastjar.  It should be replaced by a
> > wrapper on top of java.util.zip and java.util.jar.  I assume this is
> > what Sun does.  Is there any reason to not do that?
> >     
>
> Theoretically not. It would make bootstrapping things a bit more
> interesting. But as you said those things can be done with some careful
> thought about what gets build when/where and depends on what.

It shouldn't be a big problem. jar is only needed to create libgcj.jar 
and any other .jar files that are a part of the build. A "gjar" 
replacement written in java would be built to depend only on libgcj.so, 
so it will be built and working by the time we need to create the jars.

> But I am not really
> convinced that ripping out fastjar to force someone to write such a
> replacement to include in the gcc source tree is a very productive.
Well, of course it isn't.

Bryce