This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [MinGW] PR target/19970: Java unnecessarily disabled for MinGW in top-level configure
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at fastmail dot fm>
- Cc: David Ayers <d dot ayers at inode dot at>, 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: 11 Jun 2006 11:23:46 -0600
- Subject: Re: [MinGW] PR target/19970: Java unnecessarily disabled for MinGW in top-level configure
- References: <4486D4AB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <448889F0.email@example.com> <448B4CB3.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> writes:
>> 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?
Nathanael> Probably historical. :-)
Yeah. I no longer remember the reason for this.
Nathanael> Perhaps you could work up a patch for the top level which
Nathanael> does the following:
Nathanael> This would simplify the gunk at the toplevel quite a bit.
Nathanael> Can anyone think of a reason not to do this?
It sounds good to me.