From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15458 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2015 10:00:54 -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 15433 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2015 10:00:53 -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-io0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f178.google.com) (209.85.223.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:00:51 +0000 Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so46714476iod.1; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:00:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.8.36 with SMTP id 36mr8565498ioi.172.1439460049609; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.32.140 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:00:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55CB7885.6090900@redhat.com> References: <55CA44C8.7000209@redhat.com> <87mvxxdxys.fsf@tromey.com> <55CB5BB7.4090703@redhat.com> <871tf81nrk.fsf@tromey.com> <55CB7885.6090900@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning From: Richard Biener To: Jeff Law Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Tom Tromey , Uros Bizjak , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , GCJ-patches , Andrew Haley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 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). Well. My original idea was to strip down Java testing by basically removing classpath from the picture (to the extent of actually pruning it from the repository apart from maybe java.lang classes). Richard. > Jeff