Re: RFC: micro-libgcj merge proposal

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

Per> In my pre-processing model, adding preprocessing in libgcj involves
Per> little more than adding some comments to the source code.  So it
Per> should be a fairly minor cost maintaining them.  If the directives
Per> get broken, it's not difficult to fix.

Yes, I understand.  But in the scenario where we unilaterally add
preprocessing, it is very likely that I am going to be doing this
merging.  After all, I'm already doing it for the other divergences we
maintain, see the patches last week.  (And I think there are more to
come after that...)

And, to be really clear about this, I'm not willing to do this work
for preprocessed source.  In fact I want us to have fewer divergences,
not more.

Tom