On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:39, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>... >> Wasn't it JavaHL that failed to compile? If we want developers to >> always compile the Java bindings then why don't we remove it as a >> separate build target and just make it part of our default? > > You're right. We should probably Just Do This. > > We've gone back and forth on bindings for a long time now. I don't > really see much of a problem if we just built them by default (any > bindings that are configured for the local machine, that is). > > Ten years ago? Yeah... compiles weren't exactly speedy. But today? > Pfft. Compile it all. :-)
I don't think I'm concerned with compile time (though JavaHL doesn't play nicely with 'make -j'), but rather output. The swig bindings spew a lot of superfluous output, and that can mask warnings / errors in the core C libraries. -Hyrum
