On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>> At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no? Just keeping >>>>> the bytecode compiler and GIJ should be enough? That way we can >>>>> strip the classpath copy of everything that isn't needed, thus not >>>>> provide a Java library. Reduces testing coverage of GCJ to almost >>>>> zero, but ... >>>> >>>> Eh? We don't even have a Java source code frontend. In a GCC >>>> build we compile everything from bytecode. >>> >>> Don't we drop in ecj.jar and compile that to native code? Ah, seems to >>> be an optional feature. Which means only very little pieces of libgcj >>> should >>> be required to bootstrap if we remove that feature without also dropping >>> in a classpath.jar? >> >> I don't get it. If you want not to build libgcj in bootstrap, don't >> build it. But there's no need to mess about like this. > > I also want to reduce repository size by removing parts of (or you > say all of?) classpath, retaining only those portions we need for > bootstrap & regtest.
Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they need? Is this a mayor issue? Andrew.
