On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should it be replaced?
It always was very useful for detecting bugs in GCC: the code flow tends
to trigger bugs that don't get detected by the usual GCC testsuites.
That's certaily been the case in the past, but I'm seeing less and less
of that now. If we can get coverage of the non-call-exceptions paths
and cut 15% off the build/test cycle, then I think it's worth it.
I'd even be willing to explicitly make this a trial and reinstate GCJ if
we find that GCJ is catching problems not caught by the existing default
language & runtime systems.
Andrew -- my big question is what's the state of OpenJDK for other
architectures. The most obvious being ARM(64), but in general, what's
the process for bootstrapping OpenJDK on a new target and is GCJ an
integral part of that process.
jeff
