Re: [C++/Obj-C++ PATCH] Fix Objective-C++ breakage

["Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>  > I think that having all GCC developers build/test all languages all the
>  > time is overkill.  I'm all for testing, and I certainly think that
>  > people should make an effort to test languages that it seems like their
>  > paches might be likely to impact (e.g., major C++ changes are likely to
>  > affect Objectie-C++), but adding hours to everyones build/test cycles
>  > seems like a bad tradeoff.  Instead, people who break Ada,
>  > Objective-C++, etc., should be responsible to requests to fix the
>  > breakage, and willing to revert their patches if no fix is immediately
>  > found.
>
>
>  I think a middle ground could be that we enable building objc++ by
>  default, but not run its testsuite unless it is specifically enabled.
>
>  This would catch the type of bootstrap errors we've seen several times
>  recently without causing significant extra time in the overall build time.
>  I think there's like three extra .o files necessary to link cc1objcplus,
>  the remainder are reused modules from the C and C++ frontends.  It
>  certainly wouldn't be "adding hours" to everyone's test cycle.  And
>  there's no objc++ specific target library AFAICT, so it's really cheap to
>  activate.
>
>  Does this sound like a balanced and fair compromise?

Even the 130 tests of the objc++ testsuite won't hurt anyone.  Building
and testing libjava is what is most of the pain ;)

Richard.