public inbox for java@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.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: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:42:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yu57iJEDy_961JnGUuLo2+-PRQyW9U-nQtGP8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CE4F92C.4020905@redhat.com>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 <iant@google.com> 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.
>

FYI, this testsuite regression is only seen in libjava:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46515


-- 
H.J.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-18 13:42 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
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 [this message]
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='AANLkTi=yu57iJEDy_961JnGUuLo2+-PRQyW9U-nQtGP8@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=aph@redhat.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 \
    --cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
    /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).