This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [PATCH] libjava: Add option to disable BC ABI in libgcj.


On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I don't think I can approve the install.texi change.

Sure you can. ;-)  (Certainly for or those areas where you are a 
maintainer or otherwise authoritative.)

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Daney wrote:
>     * doc/install.texi (disable-libgcj-bc): Document new option.

+@item --disable-libgcj-bc
+Disable BC ABI compilation of certain parts of libgcj.  By default,
+some portions of libgcj are compiled with @option{-findirect-dispatch}
+@option{-fno-indirect-classes}.  This allows them to be overridden at
+runtime.

When first reading this, I got a bit confused by two aspects.  Perhaps 
this is something to address in a follow-up patch, David?

One was that "BC API compilation" (including myself ;-) isn't something 
most readers of doc/install.texi would be familiar with.  How about
expanding this or adding a reference/cross-reference?

The second one was that I wasn't sure what "This" referred to: the 
configure option, or the previous sentence explaining BC ABI compilation.
Perhaps replacing this by ", which" might be more clear?

+If @option{--disable-libgcj-bc} is specified, libgcj is built without
+these options.  This makes it impossible to override portions of
+libgcj at runtime, but can make it easier to statically link to libgcj.

Why does this read "can make" and not just "makes"?  I'm sure there is
some technical background here which I'm missing. :-)  Perhaps a (cross)
reference to more detailed information somewhere else could clarify that?

Gerald


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