This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
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 14:01:52 +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> <CAFiYyc1AfdRJnoqnq0XOhVRC_8fQobNH7ddno-nxCNzk=H2XRQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.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 ...
Err, miscounted ;) It's roughly half of the size of the gcc/ subdirectory.
> But I don't know much about the libjava setup to say if making classpath
> external would even work.
>
> Richard.
>
>> Andrew.
>>
>>