On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > 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. > > I'd like to reiterate a request from the summit that is related to the > default languages discussion: Add Ada to the default languages in exchange > for java+libjava. It builds nicely parallel (and fairly quick), doesn't > have a ghastly large runtime library, and tests a huge number of > middle-end paths taken by no other language. > > At the summit not many people were in favor of that, but I can't think of > any logical reason for that. > > (Of course it would be only added to the default languages if a host Ada > compiler is already pre-existing. I.e. we wouldn't add more > requirements.)
Some numbers (12 threads machine, make -j12): Bootstrap on x86_64, all languages, multilibs not disabled (but a tree w/o libquadmath) 11910.45user 345.06system 26:05.82elapsed 782%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 2797888maxresident)k 378176inputs+26582792outputs (1768major+237834772minor)pagefaults 0swaps Same, w/o Java (but a tree w/ libquadmath): 7906.15user 260.27system 16:04.65elapsed 846%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1238864maxresident)k 251808inputs+16966856outputs (1719major+178250323minor)pagefaults 0swaps Same, w/o Java and w/o Ada (also w/ libquadmath): 5963.16user 200.42system 12:07.44elapsed 847%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1238864maxresident)k 992inputs+14262344outputs (0major+145323512minor)pagefaults 0swaps thus, enabling Java makes CPU time increase by 50% while disabling Ada reduces CPU time by only 25%. Richard.