From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31988 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 03:39:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31953 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 03:39:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_IB,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; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:39:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA23dplO018264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:39:51 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA23doQB017935; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:39:50 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.73] (ovpn-113-73.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.73]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA23dm0H008308; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:39:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4CCF8804.6020203@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:39:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Novillo CC: Ian Lance Taylor , Andrew Haley , 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; format=flowed 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/msg00014.txt.bz2 On 11/01/10 12:16, 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? 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