Why long command line for libgcj.so?

[Bryce McKinlay]

David S. Miller wrote:

>The only think I am stating is that there _IS_ a problem and
>it ought to be fixed somehow.
>  
>

The fix we have been planning to implement is to build the libgcj source 
one package at a time rather than one source file at a time. gcj is 
quite capable of doing this, but it will require some significant 
Makefile hacking. This way we will end up linking a few dozen large .o 
files rather than a few thousand little ones, reducing the command line 
length and presumably being easier for the linker to process. The build 
time should also be significantly reduced because we'll be running 
libtool much less often. A disadvantage is that peak memory usage of the 
compiler may be increased (I saw it using over 80MB for the largest 
libgcj packages, maybe more), but the linker already needs close to 
100MB to link libgcj.so on x86 so I doubt that matters.

Unfortunatly, it probibly will mean longer incremental rebuild times for 
libgcj hackers, but overall I think the tradeoff is worth it.

regards

Bryce.