From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16084 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2010 18:58:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16049 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2010 18:58:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GC,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:58:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA1Iw6Ak029159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:58:06 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-40.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.40]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA1Iw4YH007250; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:58:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4CCF0DBB.5000703@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Novillo CC: Ian Lance Taylor , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00012.txt.bz2 On 11/01/2010 06:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Comments? Approvals? > > FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian. > Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen > substantial benefits for having java enabled by default. Ada, on the > other hand, has shown more usefulness in exposing bugs (particularly, > middle end) and is many times faster. > > This is the kind of patch that requires more consensus or agreement > from the java maintainers. aph, are you dead set against disabling > java? No. > Is there anything we could do to change your mind? Yes, if we have an autotester that runs the libgcj test suite and mails maintainers (or the list) when they break things. Andrew.