From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,
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
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CCF8804.6020203@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinN2srdxEJzeeNnofjbdLNaYZTxUW2TJv6==ZYG@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor<iant@google.com> 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? Is there anything we could do to change your mind?
Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files
(the names escape me) and the rather poor coarse level parallelism
(can't build the 32bit and 64bit multilibs in parallel for example).
Has anyone looked at fixing the build machinery for libjava to make it
more sensible?
I'd personally prefer java over ada as I'm able to understand java code
easier, thus when something does go wrong I'm able to debug it much faster.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-02 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-31 19:09 Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-01 8:59 ` Andrew Haley
2010-11-02 10:14 ` Laurent GUERBY
2010-11-02 15:32 ` Tom Tromey
2010-11-01 10:31 ` Dave Korn
2010-11-01 17:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-01 18:16 ` Diego Novillo
2010-11-01 18:58 ` Andrew Haley
2010-11-01 19:35 ` H.J. Lu
2010-11-02 3:39 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2010-11-02 3:58 ` H.J. Lu
2010-11-02 8:22 ` Eric Botcazou
2010-11-02 15:31 ` Tom Tromey
2010-11-02 16:25 ` Jeff Law
2010-11-02 5:12 ` Matthias Klose
2010-11-11 23:20 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-18 9:23 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-11-18 10:47 ` Andrew Haley
2010-11-18 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
2010-11-18 15:37 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-11-18 16:02 ` Diego Novillo
2010-11-18 15:23 ` Jeff Law
2010-11-18 17:19 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-18 17:58 ` Dave Korn
2010-11-18 20:53 ` Mark Wielaard
2010-10-31 19:33 Steven Bosscher
2010-10-31 19:47 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2010-11-01 3:48 ` Andrew Pinski
2010-11-01 10:11 ` Dave Korn
2010-11-01 4:06 ` Geert Bosch
2010-11-01 4:30 ` Joern Rennecke
2010-11-01 10:35 ` Geert Bosch
2010-11-01 10:46 ` Joern Rennecke
2010-11-02 10:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2010-11-02 16:43 ` David Daney
2010-11-01 17:46 ` Tom Tromey
2010-11-01 17:50 ` Andrew Haley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CCF8804.6020203@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=dnovillo@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=iant@google.com \
--cc=java-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).