Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> 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