From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6943 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 03:58:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 6919 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 03:58:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_IB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.212.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:58:04 +0000 Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so4767943vws.20 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:58:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.74.21 with SMTP id s21mr3271275qaj.295.1288670281287; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.182.10 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 20:58:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CCF8804.6020203@redhat.com> References: <4CCF8804.6020203@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jeff Law Cc: Diego Novillo , Ian Lance Taylor , Andrew Haley , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > =A0On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor =A0wrot= e: >> >>> Comments? =A0Approvals? >> >> 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. =A0Ada, 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. =A0aph, are you dead set against disabling >> java? =A0Is there anything we could do to change your mind? > > Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files (t= he > 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 mo= re > 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 faste= r. > 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=3Dgnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enab le-shared --enable-threads=3Dposix --enable-haifa --prefix=3D/usr/gcc-4.6.= 0 --with- local-prefix=3D/usr/local --with-fpmath=3Dsse --with-plugin-ld=3Dld.gold --= enable-gold --with-fpmath=3Dsse --=20 H.J.