On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ...
Err, miscounted ;) It's roughly half of the size of the gcc/ subdirectory. > But I don't know much about the libjava setup to say if making classpath > external would even work. > > Richard. > >> Andrew. >> >>
