This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Advice requested: how big can we be?
- From: Karel Gardas <kgardas at objectsecurity dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, "'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:49:40 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Advice requested: how big can we be?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Joe Buck writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:50:32PM +0200, S. Bosscher wrote:
> > > You are going to make it impossible for many people to contribute
> > > to GCC or you'll have to accept that patches will be posted that
> > > have not been tested with Java enabled, and that even fewer
> > > people will be able to produce test results for GCJ.
> > I already skip Java builds and tests most of the time because it is so
> > expensive, and I'm sure that many others do the same.
> So am I. But a Java compatible library is big, and there's nothing we
> can do about that.
I don't know gcj, but what about to divide one lib into several for
example following root packages? i.e. libgcjjavanet, libgcjjavalang,
> What I am interested to know is the class of boxes on which we can
> reasonably expect people to build gcc.
Slow (notebook) PIII-1GHz + 512MB RAM + 512 MB swap. Anyway I always buy
rather more memory than usuall since this machine should run for 3 years
and serve me well. I plan for next purchase (next year) to require 2GB
Karel Gardas email@example.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com