Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Diego> I posted this question to the SC panel at the GCC Summit today. I > Diego> wanted to consider the possibility of making java a non-default > language. > > Andrew> If this were to happen it would break repeatedly. > > Yeah, our experience back when libgcj was not in the tree was not very > good. It broke all the time. > > But, I am actually ok with having it be disabled by default, provided > that regressions affect gcj are treated seriously: fixed in a timely > way by the person causing the regression, or, if not, letting gcj > maintainers start the patch-reversion clock. > > If we make this change I'll set up an auto-tester on the compile farm > that builds gcj along with everything else. I think this would > provide a pretty reasonable compromise. Ideally we could find a PPC > box somewhere to do this as well -- anyone have some cycles to spare? > > What do you think of this? > > Another idea is to build jc1 but not libgcj. That would prevent a > certain (more minor) class of breakage.
My suggestion is that we build jc1 but not libgcj by default. HOWEVER, we build libgcj on the autobuilders and make very sure that if anyone breaks the libgcj build they have to fix their breakage, even tho it's not part of the default build. That will prevent most of the bitrot while we figure out how to go forward. Andrew.
