This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [MinGW] PR target/19970: Java unnecessarily disabled for MinGW in top-level configure
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at fastmail dot fm>
- To: David Ayers <d dot ayers at inode dot at>
- Cc: Ranjit Mathew <rmathew at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:50:27 -0400
- Subject: Re: [MinGW] PR target/19970: Java unnecessarily disabled for MinGW in top-level configure
- References: <4486D4AB.8000104@gmail.com> <e698k6$dkh$1@sea.gmane.org> <448889F0.8080803@inode.at>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Ayers wrote:
> Yet I fail to understand the need for --enable/disable-libgcj if it is
> merely being used to enable/disable java. Why isn't that being done via
> language variable?
Probably historical. :-)
Perhaps you could work up a patch for the top level which does the
following:
(1) removes --enable/disable-libgcj
(2) changes the list of default languages to not include Java for the
former targets which defaulted to --disable-libgcj, and to include Java
for the other targets. (While you're at it you could enable Java by
default on MinGW.)
(3) determines whether or not to build the libgcj subdir et al. based on
the presence of Java in the language list
This would simplify the gunk at the toplevel quite a bit. Can anyone
think of a reason not to do this?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEi0yzRGZ0aC4lkIIRAlGJAJoCNLNDL8+fpXcyUME7wWGdqoh5gACgkv4L
dL/QkQHDOJPCDS8GxHzMT+I=
=+8rk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----