This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Replace Java with Go in default languages
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Alec Teal <a dot teal at warwick dot ac dot uk>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:00:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Replace Java with Go in default languages
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <527D63DB dot 3090801 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8yw7gXgu+ndC+PKnPE_7_OcULv4LOC0u88-fA2QJUZA9A at mail dot gmail dot com> <1711331 dot F5Of0QNJ0b at polaris> <527E5852 dot 2080900 at warwick dot ac dot uk> <527E5AE4 dot 1020208 at redhat dot com> <52804D6E dot 8040807 at redhat dot com> <5280AC24 dot 4000002 at redhat dot com> <52814BCF dot 8080401 at ubuntu dot com> <CAFiYyc2YrpzVtOncgdGX3QGuc0m7UXYu6pzV3sSh=z46V3heUA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52836163 dot 8000703 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0ORq66TA4QZSH-g9GZiAPj_T7CNVA04-C0DVcaq9bKXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <528367EA dot 5000703 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3gy_Q_5wqVcukaHmDK28DtDMV8q-r4V5SQfVB29SOzWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <528375C6 dot 5040202 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley <email@example.com> 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?
It was one of the major complaints we received when dropping the
split of the distributed tarballs, that is, no more gcc-core-4.8.2.tar.bz2.
libjava is roughly half of the whole source tarball ...
But I don't know much about the libjava setup to say if making classpath
external would even work.