From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7802 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2015 21:31:49 -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 7785 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2015 21:31:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:31:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11D5915A4; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-104.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.104]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7DLViI1021872; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:31:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning To: Richard Biener References: <55CA44C8.7000209@redhat.com> <87mvxxdxys.fsf@tromey.com> <55CB5BB7.4090703@redhat.com> <871tf81nrk.fsf@tromey.com> <55CB7885.6090900@redhat.com> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Tom Tromey , Uros Bizjak , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , GCJ-patches , Andrew Haley From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <55CD0CC0.5050100@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On 08/13/2015 04:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will >>>> asynch-exceptions >>>> Jeff> be tested and the like. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that either there is some other language which needs this >>>> -- in which case that language ought to have testing for the feature -- >>>> or the feature is only used by gcj, in which case it doesn't matter. >>>> >>>> Of course is!=ought; but relying on gcj and libjava to provide this >>>> small amount of testing seems like a bad cost/benefit tradeoff. >>> >>> >>> Go does use asynchronous exceptions, and has test cases that rely on >>> them working. >> >> If you're comfortable with Go at this point and we have mechanisms in place >> to ensure Go only gets built on platforms that support Go, then I think we >> should go forward with replacing GCJ with Go. > > I think replacing it with Ada makes more sense (still have some > systems where a ton > of Go tests fail presumably because of too old glibc/kernel). > > Or just replace it with nothing as effectively neither Go nor Ada are > going to be enabled > for all primary host platforms (as for Ada you need an Ada host > compiler for example). Neither Ada nor Go are perfect. However, Ada should be at a point where, if you have a suitable host compiler, it should build and regression test. For Go, if there's platforms where the tests are unreliable, then it needs to be disabled on that platform until the tests are reliable. That's the key thing in my mind -- building and regression testing. Thus I'd support either or both between Ada and Go. In fact the more I think about it, the more I think both ought to be enabled and GCJ disabled for the default build. jeff