>>>>> "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thorsten> Why not keep enough support in jc1 to bootstrap ecj? >> > We don't know how much of the language that would be. >> And we can't tell _a priori_. As I understand it, the intention is to >> use upstream sources, and they will change. Thorsten> Just keep the current state then - maybe in a separate frontend Thorsten> only used for bootstrapping, sharing some code with the final, Thorsten> class-only, frontend. And expand it if needed for ecj. This really is not practical. First, on occasion a change to the Eclipse compiler will cause it to stop building with the current gcj. That is, the existing java front end is already too buggy for this plan to work. Second, if we look down the road we can see that there's no subset of the language that we can implement that will let this plan work. E.g., what is to stop the eclipse compiler authors from using generics? Tom
