Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>  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.
>

FWIW, it takes about 33minutes to bootstap gcc trunk on Fedora 13/Intel
Core i7 870 with both 32bit and 64bit libraries. I configure gcc with

-enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld  --enab
le-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa  --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.6.0 --with-
local-prefix=/usr/local --with-fpmath=sse --with-plugin-ld=ld.gold --enable-gold
 --with-fpmath=sse


-- 
H.J.