From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15552 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 10:47:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15462 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2010 10:47:01 -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; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:46:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAIAkc4f005615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:46:38 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-122.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.122]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAIA0C2D001727; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:00:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4CE4F92C.4020905@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:47:00 -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: Mark Mitchell 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: <4CE4F09F.7010605@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4CE4F09F.7010605@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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/msg00030.txt.bz2 On 11/18/2010 09:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC >>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only >>> building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with >>> --enable-languages. Among the people at the summit, there was general >>> support for this, and nobody was opposed to it. > >> I count 33 messages on the topic and it is clear that there is no >> consensus. I am withdrawing this proposed patch. > > I think that's a mistake. > > The arguments raised, such as the fact that Java tests non-call > exceptions, are just not persuasive to me. If we need tests for a > middle-end feature, we can almost always write them in C or C++. > > The bottom line is that libjava takes a very long time to build and that > the marginal benefit is out of proportion to the cost. Building > zillions of Java class files cannot be the best way to test non-call > exceptions. If we have no tests for non-call exceptions in the C/C++ > testsuite, perhaps you (Ian) could write a few in C++? > > Ian, I was prepared to approve the patch. I certainly won't do that if > you now think it's a bad idea, but if you still think it's a good idea, > I think you should go for it. > > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and one > of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to fix the > problem. All we're changing is whether you build Java by default; > nothing else. I made it pretty clear that as long as the autotesters build java, and I get emails when something breaks, and you have the obligation to fix whatever broke, I have no objection. Andrew.