Re: Enable libgcj for Linux targets

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

    Bryce> It would be unacceptable to force users to hack
    Bryce> configure.in in order to build Java in the release.

I completely agree.

However, we're not talking about the release: we're talking about a
(hopefully) very short period during which we're trying to stabilize
the tree.  I don't want to find configury, gcj, or new g++ bugs during
that time, since that will make it harder to figure out if we've
stabilized anything. :-)

So, I have no complaint about the patch -- only its timing.

    Bryce> However, I understand your concerns, especially given the
    Bryce> apparent problem with the libjava test suite - as a
    Bryce> compromise, can I suggest that we change configure so that
    Bryce> Java support is only built when "--enable-languages=java"

That is certainly an improvement in any event.  If you want to turn
--enable-languages=java off by default right now, and modify things as
you suggest, that's fine.

The basic issue is that this change caused a significant change in the
world during a period where the tree was slushy, and did not meet the
guidelines here:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00871.html

In particular, this change did not provide "functionality required for
the release" because Java support in general, while extremely
desirable, is not considered to be required for the release.  The good
news is that because it has taken so long to branch, and because you
and other GCJ folks stepped up to deal with the ABI issues, I'm pretty
sure there *is* going to be Java support in GCC 3.0, which is terrific!

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com