Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

rkiesling rkiesling@earthlink.net
Fri Jun 20 23:20:00 GMT 2008


Steven Bosscher:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java if
> >> > your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect it.
> >>
> >> I didn't make it completely clear, but my suggestion was mostly to
> >> help us middle/back-end hackers.
> >> Diego.
> >
> > Yeah, that's what worries me, all roads lead through the middle-end.  :-)
> 
> What is far more worrying to me, actually, is that libjava grows
> bigger and bigger and bigger with every release, so that testing it
> costs developers who care zilch about java (i.e. most people) get
> penalized more and more with increased bootstrap and test times.
> 
> In my latest timings, building and testing java takes close to two
> thirds of the total bootstrap+test time with all default languages
> enabled. That's a lot for a practically unused library and front end.
> It is the limiting time factor for me, at least, when doing gcc
> development.

I might add that building gcj also consumes much more memory than
building C or C++, so building java on platforms like Sparc-Solaris
when the system has fewer than 1 GB of memory is simply not possible
at this stage, only C and C++ builds are possible (until some of us 
manage to lay in some inexpensive memory).

-- 
Ctalk Home Page: http://www.ctalklang.org



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list