This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:50:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- References: <AANLkTikPP+=RS4BL_NQFaENvFtvvk9ughpP3kWvWT25A@mail.gmail.com> <m31v75aq66.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On 11/01/2010 05:50 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Steven> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
> Steven> that there should be at least one default language that requires
> Steven> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
> Steven> I did experimental builds with just C, C++, and Fortran, only to find
> Steven> lots of java test suite failures in a complete bootstrap+test cycle.
> Steven> So the second point is, IMVHO, not really true.
>
> Is it possible to convert all failures of this form into a C++ test case
> with -fnon-call-exceptions? If so then at least there is a way to add
> regression tests.
In practice, no. We don't know what the C++ equivalent is until we've
seen the Java (or Ada) test failure. In the Rumsfeld epistemology it's
an unknown uknown, something that we don't know we don't know.
> Steven> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
>
> As far as I'm aware, not at present. I think even the minimal possible
> subset of libjava is pretty big, on the order of hundreds of classes,
> IIRC.
And the failures I've seen have been in some of the crazy cases, not
just simple Java code, where things get complicated.
Andrew.