On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Diego Novillo wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java if >> > your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect it. >> >> I didn't make it completely clear, but my suggestion was mostly to >> help us middle/back-end hackers. >> Diego. > > Yeah, that's what worries me, all roads lead through the middle-end. :-)
What is far more worrying to me, actually, is that libjava grows bigger and bigger and bigger with every release, so that testing it costs developers who care zilch about java (i.e. most people) get penalized more and more with increased bootstrap and test times. In my latest timings, building and testing java takes close to two thirds of the total bootstrap+test time with all default languages enabled. That's a lot for a practically unused library and front end. It is the limiting time factor for me, at least, when doing gcc development. Things would be so much better for me if we'd only test a subset of libjava by default... *sigh* Gr. Steven
