Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Apr 22, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> You seem to want to turn on libgcj everywhere

No.  I only want to turn on gcj everywhere, which is what
build_by_default for Java will accomplish.  AFAIK, ${libgcj} was put
in noconfigdirs of all platforms in which it wasn't known to work or
to being close to work.

> Instead, I've asked that you turn it off
> everywhere, and turn it on where you have tested that it works.

Except that there's no way to enable libgcj except by editing
configure.in.

Alexandre> Some of the involved platforms take the whole week for
Alexandre> a full build&test

> Which of the platforms I suggested take a week to test?  Surely none
> of the primary release platforms takes a week?

My IRIX plaforms and the AIX platforms, those on which I've found
problems before, do take a week.  For all the others, no problems at
all have been found.

>   - Perform the testing I requested.

You asked two people to perform the tests.  I've already done my
part.  But you've forbidden me from doing whatever it takes to get the
patch in by requiring someone else to participate in the testing.
I've already posted the patch that does what it takes for others to
start testing.  I'd love to have the patch in the snapshot, because
then we'd know whether it's safe or not from the dozens of weekly
reports we get.

> It is my job to organize the release, and I am doing the best I can.
> If you feel someone else would do better, that is your privilege, and
> you are welcome to make that suggestion to the SC.

Sorry.  I don't mean you're not doing your best.  I just disagree with
this particular decision.  It's easy enough to revert the patch so as
to disable GCJ.  My point is that, by enabling it for a snapshot,
we'll get the thing tested for free, and, since it hasn't caused
trouble on most platforms on which I've tested it, it's just as likely
that it won't cause problems for anybody else, and we'll have
confirmation of the passes I got, which is what you want.  And, for
those platforms on which something goes wrong, we're much more likely
to get a report in case this something goes wrong by default than by
requiring random (or even robot) testers to pass an additional switch
to configure.

I'd rather not have to create a situation in which the SC might decide
to overrule you.  I don't want to create disputes.  I'd much rather
we'd just reached an agreement.  Before today's snapshot :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me