Could we change the subject for responses to this strand of the debate?
Alec
On 20/11/13 20:27, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
>> >
>> > It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
>> > language that looks cool but ha
On 11/20/2013 1:45 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
>>
>> It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
>> language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
>
> Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is ready for any
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
> >
> > It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
> > language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
>
> Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
> language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is ready for any use one
might care to put it to. The reasons I believe
There's a point where this becomes "change for the sake of change"
perhaps we should stick with "if it's not broken, make no attempt to fix
it".
Is Java's presence hurting anyone. Yes. Is GCJ's presence hurting
anyone? No.
That was phrased badly, I hate Java, but GCJ can make it produce
som
On 11/14/13 04:50, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The machine is an older quad core, so if you're building one something
with more cores and Ada + its runtime parallelizes better than java +
its runtime, then you'd probably see materially different results.
What happens if you do
make STAGE1_CFLAGS="
> The machine is an older quad core, so if you're building one something
> with more cores and Ada + its runtime parallelizes better than java +
> its runtime, then you'd probably see materially different results.
What happens if you do
make STAGE1_CFLAGS="-O -g" -j4
instead of a bare make -j4
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/13/13 09:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
>>
>>
>> Jeff> Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
>> Jeff> languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
>> Jeff> I
On 11/13/13 11:55, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Across 10 runs we came in right at 70 minutes with the usual ~20 second
variance. So it's slightly slower than the default languages right now.
That doesn't help the cycle time for developers which was the major
point for me.
Your results still look a li
> Across 10 runs we came in right at 70 minutes with the usual ~20 second
> variance. So it's slightly slower than the default languages right now.
> That doesn't help the cycle time for developers which was the major
> point for me.
Your results still look a little strange to me...
> As for Ada
On 11/13/13 05:51, Andrew Haley wrote:
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?
On 11/13/13 04:06, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, I'm thinking that waiting time is not so much of an issue (you
can interleave other work). People not testing all languages and
breaking bootstrap for others is the problem (that includes dropping
in not tested libgo updates - a reason why I never
On 11/13/13 09:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
Jeff> languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
Jeff> I'm unsure how best to proceed.
IIRC from upthread the main reason to keep one
> "Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
Jeff> languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
Jeff> I'm unsure how best to proceed.
IIRC from upthread the main reason to keep one of these languages is
-fnon-call-e
> "Richard" == Richard Biener writes:
Richard> Whatever the "core language runtime" would be - I'm somewhat a
Richard> Java ignorant.
The core is quite large, unless you are also willing to track through
all the code and chop out the bits you don't want for testing. This
would mean having a
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> Well, I'm thinking that waiting time is not so much of an issue (you
> can interleave other work). People not testing all languages and
> breaking bootstrap for others is the problem (that includes dropping
> in not tested libgo updates -
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 01:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
> need? Is this a mayor issue?
It was o
On 11/13/2013 01:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
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
>>>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> 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
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 a
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM,
On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> At least we don't need a Java s
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley 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 byte
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley 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
>>>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley 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 ne
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 co
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>>
>>> From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
>>> with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
>>> the results clearly show building Ada & its ru
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
>> On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> 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 s
* Jeff Law:
> At least for Linux systems, the bootstrapping problem is largely a
> solved problem by the major vendors.
Debian is special because GNAT is typically built from a different GCC
release than the rest of the distribution because two Ada transitions
in a single release cycle are a bit
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 00:19, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/11/2013 09:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
>> On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> 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
>
> From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
> with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
> the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
> amount of time:
>
> default languages:67 minutes
> default - java:
> From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
> with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
> the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
> amount of time:
>
> default languages:67 minutes
> default - java:
On 11/09/13 04:12, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java o
On 11/11/13 14:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
The last news item related to Java was 2009 and scanning the ChangeLog doesn't
show significant project activity (~14 changes in 2013, most of which look like
routine maintenance in the language front-end. There's even fewer changes
occurring in the run
Am 08.11.2013 23:21, schrieb Jeff Law:
>
>
> GCJ has, IMHO, moved from active development into a deep maintenance mode.
> I
> suspect this is largely due to the change of focus of key developers to
> OpenJDK
> and other projects. GCJ played a role in bootstrapping OpenJDK, both
> technicall
Am 09.11.2013 01:24, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> So instead of proposing that we just remove Java from the default languags,
>> I propose that we replace Java with Go.
>
> I'm certainly in favor of removing Java from the set of default
> langu
Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
> On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> 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
On 11/11/13 07:38, Andi Kleen wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
There's no reason to remove
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 04:12:51PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
>
> > These will be checked by bots and when there is a failure on closed bug it
> > will be reopened.
>
> No, don't reopen old bugs unless it turns out the patch claimed to fix the
> bug
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
> These will be checked by bots and when there is a failure on closed bug it
> will be reopened.
No, don't reopen old bugs unless it turns out the patch claimed to fix the
bug didn't fix it at all, or needed to be reverted. Open new bugs when
all you kn
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:38:15AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
> > Thoughts or comments?
>
> If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
>
> So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
> If you don't do that you could as well just remove t
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
>> Thoughts or comments?
>
> If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
>
> So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
> If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
>
>
Jeff Law writes:
> Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
The underlying problem seems to be the requirement for each
contri
On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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
On 11/09/13 04:12, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java o
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 sh
On 11/09/13 08:44, 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 repla
* Richard Biener:
> Oh, can we consider dropping java alltogether please?
At least we could remove all those pregenerated files.
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
>> Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
>> disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
>> straightforward (we already have rules to disable java on target
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 sho
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?
Alec
On 09/11/13 11:55, Eri
> Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
> Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
> disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
> straightforward (we already have rules to disable java on targets it
> does not support).
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> So instead of proposing that we just remove Java from the default languags,
> I propose that we replace Java with Go.
I'm certainly in favor of removing Java from the set of default
languages.
I'm less sure about adding Go.
Right now Go does n
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thoughts or comments?
I fully support this. I've been wanting to remove Java from the
default bootstrap for a long time now. Bringing in Go seems like a
good idea as well.
Diego.
GCJ has, IMHO, moved from active development into a deep maintenance
mode.I suspect this is largely due to the change of focus of key
developers to OpenJDK and other projects. GCJ played a role in
bootstrapping OpenJDK, both technically and politically and had OpenJDK
not happened, I su
59 matches
Mail list logo
