This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Reconsidering gcjx
- From: "Boehm, Hans" <hans dot boehm at hp dot com>
- To: "Laurent GUERBY" <laurent at guerby dot net>, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caipclassic dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: <tromey at redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:21:37 -0800
- Subject: RE: Reconsidering gcjx
> From: Laurent GUERBY
> Wether C++, Java or Ada, a new language requirement looks the same to
> me: having a good enough base compiler and runtime installed
> for the language, I do not see anything special to Java or
> Ada over C++ here. The base compiler I use for building GCC
> has only c,ada (4.0) because that's what is needed, if c++ is
> needed I'll add the recommanded c++ compiler, if java and
> some JVM is needed, I'll add java and the recommanded JVM, no
> big difference.
As others have pointed out, there's potentially a small difference in
the case of Java, in that I believe the .class -> .o part of the
compiler would still be buildable without an existing JVM, and perhaps
even somewhat tested without one. And that's the part that's likely to
break if other parts of the compiler are changed. I don't think Ada has
an analog to that.
Hans