If you don't have a previous incarnation of GCJ installed...

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 12:53:03PM +1300, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> > > My preferred solution is for libtool to stop doing silly tests! (there has
> > > never been a GCJ that doesn't support "-c -o"), but don't think Oliva liked
> > > that idea. Ideally we could put a flag in ltcf-gcj.sh that tells it not to
> > > bother, but I don't see an obvious way to do that with the current libtool.
> >
> > I s'pose you could have configure edit the generated libtool after
> > LT_AC_PROG_GCJ is done.
> >
> > _My_ recommended solution would be for "class foo {}" not to require
> > any external data in order to generate an object file, but I have no
> > idea what causes the requirement; maybe this is genuinely necessary.
>
> In Java, "foo" implicitly extends java.lang.Object, so GCJ must load
> at least that class in order to determine layouts for fields,
> vtables, etc. 

But shouldn't it be possible to disable that?  It makes sense while
building normal code, but this is the runtime library.

What seems most wrong, to me, is that jc1 looks for java.lang.Object
before it even touches the input file.  Surely this should be
compilable without external references:

package java.lang;
class Object {}

zw