ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva@redhat.com
Fri Apr 20 00:12:00 GMT 2001
On Apr 19, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
Alexandre> the rest of the development snapshot. I'm all for
Alexandre> re-enabling it by default.
Mark> I'm not. It's just too risky at this point.
Tom> What do you mean? What is the risk?
> We are talking about introducing new, major functionality.
This is not fair. You had asked to have it disabled temporarily, so
that people could fix some of the C++ problems. The release is
approaching, I've been building java along with GCC snapshots for the
past 2-3 snapshots and have only encountered problems on FreeBSD 2.2
(3.0 and newer are ok), HP-UX 10.20 (where g++ is broken too) and AIX
4.1 (that is certainly just too old to be useful). It worked out of
the box on all other 12+ platforms I test regularly.
Maybe you don't care for Java. A lot of people do. The same argument
you use, which is that it's easy enough to enable it, can be applied
in the other direction: it's easy enough to disable it too. Besides,
GCC 2.95 had gcj compiled in by default, so this would be a
regression.
I agree it didn't have libjava, but the very argument you use, which
is that it would force the C++ compiler to compile lots of complex
library code, is also one more reason to have libjava enabled by
default: GCC 2.95.2 could compile libjava on a number of platforms.
If GCC 3.0 doesn't, that's another regression.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list