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".
> 2) it is in practice very
> unusual for middle-end or back-end changes to cause problems with Java
> without also causing problems for C/C++,
This seems like false reasoning as well. It may (or may not - I don't
suppose anyone's actually done the number on this, have they?) be unusual, but
the bugs that meet this criterion are nonetheless real bugs that we do not
want to put into our compiler if we can possibly help it, they will
subsequently need discovering, analysing and fixing, and will require manpower
and resources to do so.
I find it hard not to expect that the long-term outcome will be a gradual
decline in quality of gcj if we do this. Particularly on minority platforms,
which are exactly the ones that have the least manpower available to fix
problems.
For these reasons, my "vote" is against making this change.
cheers,
DaveK
