This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning



----- Original Message -----
> On August 20, 2015 7:35:37 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Hughes
> <gnu.andrew@redhat.com> wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >> snip...
> >> > 
> >> > Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future
> >git)
> >> > repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of the
> >> > distributed source tarball.
> >> > 
> >> > If we can get rid of that that would be a great step in reducing
> >the
> >> > burden.
> >> > 
> >> > Iff we can even without classpath build enough of java to be useful
> >(do you
> >> > really need gcj or only gij for bootstrapping openjdk? After all
> >ecj is
> >> > just
> >> > a drop-in to gcc as well).
> >> 
> >> All the Java compilers are written in Java (ecj & javac). So to run
> >them, you
> >> need a JVM and its class library.
> >> 
> >> It's those binary files which allow gcj to bootstrap the stack. If
> >OpenJDK
> >> had a minimal binary class library, it would be able to bootstrap
> >itself.
> >> 
> >> But, as things stand, you need enough of the JDK to run a Java
> >compiler
> >> and build the OpenJDK class libraries. GCJ currently fulfils that
> >need
> >> where there isn't already an OpenJDK installation available.
> >> --
> >
> >Actually, this makes me think...
> >
> >IcedTea already depends on CACAO and JamVM for alternate builds of
> >OpenJDK. We could instead include the bytecode binaries for GNU
> >Classpath
> >in IcedTea, bootstrap JamVM and use that to bootstrap OpenJDK. That
> >would remove our dependency on gcj and make IcedTea largely
> >self-sufficient.
> >It would also mean we could drop a bunch of conditional code which
> >depends
> >on what the system bootstrap JDK is, because it would always be the
> >in-tree
> >solution.
> >
> >We'd still need more than six months to make this transition though,
> >as such a change really needs time for testing.
> 
> OK, so how about deprecating Java for GCC 6 by removing it from the default
> languages and removing it for GCC 7 or before we switch to git (whatever
> happens earlier?)
> 

Yeah, that's what I suggested at the end of [0] so +1 from me.

As Joseph says, I don't think the move to git is relevant to this. If it
had happened sooner, though, I'd have properly merged GNU Classpath more
frequently... ;)

> Richard.
> 
> 
> 

[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2015-q3/msg00029.html
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222

PGP Key: rsa4096/248BDC07 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


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