Re: FYI: submitted ecj patch upstream

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> Andrew> So now we have somewhere between 1-3 plus driver scripts plus
> Andrew> the JVM which can be a pain in the butt to install on say a
> Andrew> powerpc Linux box because there is no JVM that exists to begin
> Andrew> without gcj.
>
> Tom> There's kaffe and jamvm, and probably others.
>
> Andrew Haley also floated the idea of checking in all the .class files
> and CNI headers, and simply disabling the java->class compilation for
> most developers.
>
> This would solve one problem but not the one at hand... we would still
> need ecj in order to run 'make check', or for the installed gcj to be
> useful.
>
> Folks, please comment on this.

I like the idea of checking in the .class files (perhaps in the form a a 
jar file) and CNI headers.

The idea of having to have a working JVM to build is not at all 
appealing to me.  Having to wget ecj.jar is one thing, but having to 
build/port jamvm and classpath to my build platform before I can build 
GCC does not sound like fun.  Right now I can bootstrap GCC with libgcj 
on my little MIPS board.  If I need a functioning JVM in order to build 
I don't think I will be able to bootstrap anymore.  That would be 
unfortunate.

David Daney.