This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:00:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTikxZ+ZBo-AWL1M5dmdJWE4G=sVxUFpYGz0y7eqh@mail.gmail.com> <4CE4F09F.email@example.com>
On 11/18/2010 09:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
>>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
>>> building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
>>> --enable-languages. Among the people at the summit, there was general
>>> support for this, and nobody was opposed to it.
>> I count 33 messages on the topic and it is clear that there is no
>> consensus. I am withdrawing this proposed patch.
> I think that's a mistake.
> The arguments raised, such as the fact that Java tests non-call
> exceptions, are just not persuasive to me. If we need tests for a
> middle-end feature, we can almost always write them in C or C++.
> The bottom line is that libjava takes a very long time to build and that
> the marginal benefit is out of proportion to the cost. Building
> zillions of Java class files cannot be the best way to test non-call
> exceptions. If we have no tests for non-call exceptions in the C/C++
> testsuite, perhaps you (Ian) could write a few in C++?
> Ian, I was prepared to approve the patch. I certainly won't do that if
> you now think it's a bad idea, but if you still think it's a good idea,
> I think you should go for it.
> I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and one
> of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to fix the
> problem. All we're changing is whether you build Java by default;
> nothing else.
I made it pretty clear that as long as the autotesters build java, and I
get emails when something breaks, and you have the obligation to fix
whatever broke, I have no objection.