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. Andrew.
