From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15670 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 10:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 15632 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 10:13:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_GC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (HELO smtp22.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:13:53 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2203.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 807EA700009C; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:13:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (101.61.75-86.rev.gaoland.net [86.75.61.101]) by msfrf2203.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E796F7000093; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:13:49 +0100 (CET) X-SFR-UUID: 20101102101349948.E796F7000093@msfrf2203.sfr.fr Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default From: Laurent GUERBY To: Andrew Haley Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <4CCE817D.1060705@redhat.com> References: <4CCE817D.1060705@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1288692829.24825.98.camel@pc2.unassigned-domain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 08:59 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/31/2010 07:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > This patch should not of course change whether or not distros choose to > > package the Java compiler; undoubtedly they would continue to do so, > > just as they package the Ada compiler today. > > > > Comments? Approvals? > > I see your point, but this will lead to some quality regressions in gcc > itself. libgcj is a good stress test for gcc, and has revealed some > bugs in the past. It might be possible to mitigate some of this with > autotesters that run a full libgcj bootstrap every night. Hi, Let's imagine we have a reliable tool on a distributed build farm that accepts set of patches (via mail and web with some authentification) and does automatic regression testing and report on selected platform. This would enable more ambitious in our testing requirements without having developpers invest in powerful machines to avoid being slowed down but would GCC developpers go as far as setting a requirement that patches must be validated by such a tool before commit for example by giving the URL of the tester result with suitable exceptions for trivial patches and tester being unavailable or overloaded, etc...? Sincerely, Laurent http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm