Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

On 11/18/2010 09:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default.  At the GCC
>>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
>>> building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
>>> --enable-languages.  Among the people at the summit, there was general
>>> support for this, and nobody was opposed to it.
> 
>> I count 33 messages on the topic and it is clear that there is no
>> consensus.  I am withdrawing this proposed patch.
> 
> I think that's a mistake.
> 
> The arguments raised, such as the fact that Java tests non-call
> exceptions, are just not persuasive to me.  If we need tests for a
> middle-end feature, we can almost always write them in C or C++.
> 
> The bottom line is that libjava takes a very long time to build and that
> the marginal benefit is out of proportion to the cost.  Building
> zillions of Java class files cannot be the best way to test non-call
> exceptions.  If we have no tests for non-call exceptions in the C/C++
> testsuite, perhaps you (Ian) could write a few in C++?
> 
> Ian, I was prepared to approve the patch.  I certainly won't do that if
> you now think it's a bad idea, but if you still think it's a good idea,
> I think you should go for it.
> 
> I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and one
> of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to fix the
> problem.  All we're changing is whether you build Java by default;
> nothing else.

I made it pretty clear that as long as the autotesters build java, and I
get emails when something breaks, and you have the obligation to fix
whatever broke, I have no objection.

Andrew.