From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20421 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2010 17:36:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 20351 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2010 17:36:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_IB,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:35:57 +0000 Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oA1HZtOr024633 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:35:55 -0700 Received: from pxi3 (pxi3.prod.google.com [10.243.27.3]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oA1HYuMi012047 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:35:54 -0700 Received: by pxi3 with SMTP id 3so1117989pxi.40 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.41.8 with SMTP id t8mr4405546wfj.89.1288632953492; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com ([216.239.45.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y42sm9230843wfd.22.2010.11.01.10.35.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Dave Korn Cc: 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: <4CCE9C7D.9060405@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4CCE9C7D.9060405@gmail.com> (Dave Korn's message of "Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:54:53 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00008.txt.bz2 Dave Korn writes: > On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument >> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large >> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the >> amount of time it takes to test changes; > > Proposing to change the compiler as a solution to that problem seems to be a > category error to me. You can achieve the same end-result by social rather > than technical means: just change the rules for patch submission to say "You > don't have to test your patch against Java". I think the two statements are essentially equivalent. These days, when most ordinary users get their compiler from a distro or other binary form, the set of default languages is most important for gcc developers. We currently say that for middle-end or backend patches you must bootstrap with all default languages. Changing the set of default languages is a way of changing that statement. It's not, in my opinion, a category error. Ian