This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:35:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4CCE9C7D.email@example.com>
Dave Korn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
>> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large
>> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the
>> amount of time it takes to test changes;
> Proposing to change the compiler as a solution to that problem seems to be a
> category error to me. You can achieve the same end-result by social rather
> than technical means: just change the rules for patch submission to say "You
> don't have to test your patch against Java".
I think the two statements are essentially equivalent. These days, when
most ordinary users get their compiler from a distro or other binary
form, the set of default languages is most important for gcc developers.
We currently say that for middle-end or backend patches you must
bootstrap with all default languages. Changing the set of default
languages is a way of changing that statement. It's not, in my opinion,
a category error.