On 11/18/10 02:23, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor<i...@google.com> wrote:
Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
--enable-languages. Among the people at the summit, there was general
support for this, and nobody was opposed to it.
I count 33 messages on the topic and it is clear that there is no
consensus. I am withdrawing this proposed patch.
[ ... ]
The bottom line is that libjava takes a very long time to build and that
the marginal benefit is out of proportion to the cost. Building
zillions of Java class files cannot be the best way to test non-call
exceptions. If we have no tests for non-call exceptions in the C/C++
testsuite, perhaps you (Ian) could write a few in C++?
To put this in perspective, eliminating java cuts my build cycle time by
more than 50%.
I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and one
of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to fix the
problem. All we're changing is whether you build Java by default;
nothing else.
Agreed. I'd really like to see java removed from the default languages;
I just don't see the cost vs benefit justifies keeping java in the
default languages.
Jeff
