George Vasick <George.Vasick at sun.com> writes:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:48PM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
> >> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:24:13AM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
> >>>> There is testing and potentially support.
> >>> Support means the same thing for GCJ and GNAT as for GCC: we'll keep the
> >>> thing up to date as new versions come out. Support need not mean "we'll
> >>> fix any bugs in GCJ and/or GNAT before the GCC community does."
> >>>
> >>> If it builds and passes its own tests (this shouldn't take long to
> >>> verify, and we have an attestation that it does) then including it costs
> >>> *nothing* on the margin.
> >> I guess I disagree with this. It costs nothing right up to the point
> >> where you are the one doing it and you run into a problem.
> >
> > But you haven't even tried!
>
> That is correct. This whole discussion of additional language support
> is beyond the scope of our original plans.
>
> This ARC case was supposed to be about upgrading to the latest GCC and
> binutils, adding support for Sparc, and defining an installation
> strategy that allows multiple versions of compilers and tools to
> coexist. I would prefer to see the question of supporting additional
> languages deferred until we have the these issues sorted out and we know
> that we can provided C and C++ in time for the next release of OpenSolaris.
>
> Can we proceed on this case without adding support for Java and Ada or
> is that a showstopper?
I'd strongly suggest to include them in this delivery. If interaction with
gccfss proves to be a problem, I'd suggest to default to the plain SPARC
backend instead (as is already the case for GCC 3.4.3), and try to figure
out the problems later. Prolonging the language disparity with most/all
other free operating systems doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.
Rainer
