This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Replace Java with Go in default languages


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 01:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> Really?  Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
>>>>> need?  Is this a mayor issue?
>>>>
>>>> It was one of the major complaints we received when dropping the
>>>> split of the distributed tarballs, that is, no more gcc-core-4.8.2.tar.bz2.
>>>> libjava is roughly half of the whole source tarball ...
>>>
>>> Err, miscounted ;)  It's roughly half of the size of the gcc/ subdirectory.
>>
>> Well, for the size it might help stop including all the precompiled
>> *.class/*.jar files in the repository, that is roughly half of
>> libjava/, and only configuring java if everything is there to set up
>> building the class files from source.  We are doing that for years
>> on redhat branches (with the main intent to avoid just relying on
>> binary blobs, but size reduction is a nice side-effect).
>>
>> I think all the prebuilt binary blobs (and generated headers) were added
>> because java was an --enable-languages=all language and the maintainers
>> didn't want to add burden of other prerequisities.
>
> That's right.
>
>> But, if we make it that java will not be configured unless you have
>> those prerequisities, I don't see why we would need to include
>> those.  For cross-compilers of course one will need the ecj jar file
>> (target independent) and some java interpreter around, but it will
>> be needed on the build box.
>
> Yes, that's always been the gnarly problem when bootstrapping.  GCJ
> has provided the only way that you can get Java on some targets,
> because it's the only way to build a working Java that does not
> require you already to have a working Java.

But only because you cheat and have a working Java already as
Java bytecode ;)  "cross-compiling" Java sounds a bit funny.

As of java testing with --disable-libjava I realized there are no
java tests in gcc/testsuite but all tests are in libjava (but also
with bytecode).  Not sure if there is a subset of tests that
works with a "bare" java runtime (which we don't seem to
split from libgcj which contains both the core language runtime
and classpath).  Whatever the "core language runtime" would be - I'm
somewhat a Java ignorant.

Richard.

> Andrew.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]