Reconsidering gcjx

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

 > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> writes:
 > 
 > | However with Tom's proposal, we need an existing java compiler for
 > | our target.
 > 
 > I don't believe the issues at hand here (Java specific case) are as
 > severe as they sound from your messages.  

Okay fine, let's quantify it.  I downloaded the Dec 2005
gcc-testresults archive from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/mail-archives/gcc-testresults/gcc-testresults-2005-12.bz2

Then i ran this shell pipeline:

grep '\--enable-languages=' gcc-testresults-2005-12 | sed 's/.*--enable-languages=//; s/ .*$//' | tr ',' '\n' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr

and I got:

   1690 c
   1659 c++
   1379 objc
   1233 java
    945 fortran
    451 ada
    292 treelang
    229 obj-c++
    228 f95
    185 f77
     14 pascal
     13 for
      3
      2 3Dc
      1 treela=
      1 c+
      1 ;t
      1 3Dfortran

(Note: fortran + f95 + f77 = 1358 or about on par with Java.)

As you can see, Java currently gets less testing than c/c++ but its
still about 3x the testing that Ada gets.  Part of the reason for
Ada's low numbers is the extra prerequisite placed on bootstrapping.
I'd like to avoid having Java fall lower than it already is.


 > In 2006, I believe the availability of java front-ends for
 > bootsstrapping the GNU Java is sufficiently widespread enough to
 > outweight and overcome the potential problems you're anticipating.

I don't think it matters how available it is.  Many testers and
developers just won't bother.

 > We desperatly need to get GCC more supported, more integrated into
 > widely used development tools.  We cannot sustain improvements,
 > competition by isolating and painting ourselves into corners.
 > -- Gaby

I think we agree on that goal and I've said my piece.  If others think
the benefits of using Java in the Java FE are worthwhile I won't
oppose it.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu