This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Small example of livelock regression in garbage collector forGCJ 3.3 under W
- From: "Ranjit Mathew" <rmathew at hotmail dot com>
- To: aph at redhat dot com
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:06:44 +0530
- Subject: Re: Small example of livelock regression in garbage collector forGCJ 3.3 under W
- Bcc:
> BTW, these flags get added to "libgcj.spec" - now when I
> build the GCJ cross compiler, I --disable-libgcj (to save
> 1 hour from the build time!) so no such file is created - does
> that mean that the crossed-native GCJ/libgcj that is built
> using this cross compiler will *not* be compiled using
> these flags?
>
> If yes, I need to look at some other way to propagate
> these flags to the GCJ cross-compiler without having to
> build the whole of libgcj.
But you have to rebuild libgcj anyway.
I meant not having to build libgcj while building the cross compiler - for
the crossed native compiler, I realise that I need to rebuild libgcj.
(The cross-compiler's libgcj doesn't get used while building the
crossed-native compiler and therefore is a wasted effort that can save
build times. Thanks to Mohan for pointing this out.)
To put it in a slightly different way, does modifying
"libgcj/configure.host"
like this affect the libgcj that is being built or *merely* cause these to
be
added to libgcj.spec for "future" programs compiled with this GCJ?
If I need to affect the crossed-native compiler's libgcj, is there any way I
can do this *without* having to build the cross compiler's libgcj as well?
Ranjit.
_________________________________________________________________
Calling NRIs! Manage your money smartly.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/nriservices/index.asp Click here for
more.