Re: FYI: submitted ecj patch upstream

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

> 
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
> 
> Tom> I looked at writing an "ecj1" driver that does a pure translation of
> Tom> command-line arguments, but I don't think that is possible due to our
> Tom> need to differentiate between "primary" and "dependency" classes on
> Tom> the output end.
> 
> Andrew> Why not just create a C program that converts the options and place
> Andrew> that into the GCC repo and have it build with the rest of the compiler?
> 
> Like I said, I don't think it is possible.

Why?  I don't see why you think it needs to be written in Java.

> 
> Andrew> I think this is a very very bad idea as it means we have to go out
> Andrew> and grab too many things.
> 
> You will have to download between 1 and 3 jars, depending on how we
> package it.  Hmm... you'll also need a couple little driver scripts.

See now we are getting into the problems with the ecj merge, there are
going to be too many dependecies.  You forget to mention you also
need a JVM also.  So now we have somewhere between 1-3 plus driver
scripts plus the JVM which can be a pain in the butt to install on say
a powerpc Linux box because there is no JVM that exists to begin without
gcj. Cross compiling is out of the question for most places so this is not
going to help Java to become a release blocker but instead hurt the chances
it ever will.

-- Pinski