This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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: [RFC] Replace Java with Go in default languages

On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley <> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley <> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no?  Just keeping
>>>>> the bytecode compiler and GIJ should be enough?  That way we can
>>>>> strip the classpath copy of everything that isn't needed, thus not
>>>>> provide a Java library.  Reduces testing coverage of GCJ to almost
>>>>> zero, but ...
>>>> Eh?  We don't even have a Java source code frontend.  In a GCC
>>>> build we compile everything from bytecode.
>>> Don't we drop in ecj.jar and compile that to native code?  Ah, seems to
>>> be an optional feature.  Which means only very little pieces of libgcj should
>>> be required to bootstrap if we remove that feature without also dropping
>>> in a classpath.jar?
>> I don't get it.  If you want not to build libgcj in bootstrap, don't
>> build it.  But there's no need to mess about like this.
> I also want to reduce repository size by removing parts of (or you
> say all of?) classpath, retaining only those portions we need for
> bootstrap & regtest.

Really?  Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
need?  Is this a mayor issue?


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