This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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: FYI: submitted ecj patch upstream


Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
 > 
 > Andrew> I'm not sure in most cases we'd even need a source for 'make check'.
 > Andrew> 'make check' is supposed to check what we just built: we don't need to
 > Andrew> test ecj, but the JVM we just built and the .class -> .o compiler.
 > 
 > Ugh.  I really don't like the idea of working on all that nasty
 > dejagnu code.
 > 
 > I think we need to have some test of the driver somewhere.
 > 
 > >> I like the idea of checking in the .class files (perhaps in the
 > >> form a a jar file)
 > 
 > Andrew> Yes, that's what I fancied doing.
 > 
 > The jar file is nearly 10M.  The class files look to be about 17M.
 > The header jar was nearly 1M, header files alone are 1.7M.
 > 
 > I think we probably need buy-in from other gcc developers before
 > checking this stuff in.

Trunk libgcj source is 109032 kbytes.  gcj-eclipse libgcj source is
120496 kbytes, an increase of 11464 kbytes.

So, you did not consider getting the buy-in from other gcc developers
before checking in the new libgcj, an increase of 11 Mbytes, but
somehow it is necessary before adding 10 Mbytes of .jar file and 1M of
headers?

I don't get it.

Andrew.


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