From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16635 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 18:05:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16617 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2015 18:05:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wi0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f170.google.com) (209.85.212.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:05:51 +0000 Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so152020011wic.1; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.198.145 with SMTP id jc17mr14812296wic.37.1440093948322; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from android-4c5a376a18c0e957.fritz.box (p4FE9C7D7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.233.199.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ul1sm6564544wjc.30.2015.08.20.11.05.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:05:47 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <118141631.13413443.1440092137784.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <55D58ED0.1020402@ubuntu.com> <55D5909B.3080207@redhat.com> <401143105.13318272.1440082676204.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D5F1C8.7060003@redhat.com> <753848288.13346990.1440085975680.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <6D3AF2B0-A114-4871-B606-E17C19D0D8B4@gmail.com> <100448475.13392788.1440089992425.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <118141631.13413443.1440092137784.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning From: Richard Biener Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:05:00 -0000 To: Andrew Hughes CC: Andrew Haley ,Matthias Klose ,Tom Tromey ,Jeff Law ,Uros Bizjak ,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <3CB72092-59D0-4110-ADAB-5112AEB62A69@gmail.com> X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 On August 20, 2015 7:35:37 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Hughes wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >> snip... >> > >> > Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future >git) >> > repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of the >> > distributed source tarball. >> > >> > If we can get rid of that that would be a great step in reducing >the >> > burden. >> > >> > Iff we can even without classpath build enough of java to be useful >(do you >> > really need gcj or only gij for bootstrapping openjdk? After all >ecj is >> > just >> > a drop-in to gcc as well). >> >> All the Java compilers are written in Java (ecj & javac). So to run >them, you >> need a JVM and its class library. >> >> It's those binary files which allow gcj to bootstrap the stack. If >OpenJDK >> had a minimal binary class library, it would be able to bootstrap >itself. >> >> But, as things stand, you need enough of the JDK to run a Java >compiler >> and build the OpenJDK class libraries. GCJ currently fulfils that >need >> where there isn't already an OpenJDK installation available. >> -- > >Actually, this makes me think... > >IcedTea already depends on CACAO and JamVM for alternate builds of >OpenJDK. We could instead include the bytecode binaries for GNU >Classpath >in IcedTea, bootstrap JamVM and use that to bootstrap OpenJDK. That >would remove our dependency on gcj and make IcedTea largely >self-sufficient. >It would also mean we could drop a bunch of conditional code which >depends >on what the system bootstrap JDK is, because it would always be the >in-tree >solution. > >We'd still need more than six months to make this transition though, >as such a change really needs time for testing. OK, so how about deprecating Java for GCC 6 by removing it from the default languages and removing it for GCC 7 or before we switch to git (whatever happens earlier?) Richard.