On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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?
It was one of the major complaints we received when dropping the split of the distributed tarballs, that is, no more gcc-core-4.8.2.tar.bz2. libjava is roughly half of the whole source tarball ... But I don't know much about the libjava setup to say if making classpath external would even work. Richard. > Andrew. > >
