On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 09:18 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew has asked for autotesters for Java; I don't run any autotesters
> and I don't want to sign up for that. Can somebody volunteer for that?
> Presumably anybody currently running an autotester could add an explicit
> --enable-languag
On 18/11/2010 17:18, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> At this point does anybody strongly object to committing the patch.
Nah, I've been persuaded by the arguments advanced and withdraw my previous
objection.
cheers,
DaveK
> I wouldn't mind this change. It is still the case that Ada will
> selectively turn itself off when it cannot find a stage0 gnat
> compiler, right?
Right.
Mark Mitchell writes:
> On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
>>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
>>> buildi
On 11/18/2010 9:16 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I wouldn't mind this change. It is still the case that Ada will
> selectively turn itself off when it cannot find a stage0 gnat
> compiler, right?
I don't mind this either, but let's treat them as orthogonal. Let's not
let a possible change on the A
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 08:49, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> And finally as some people have noted already, Ada exposes lots of
> interesting latent bugs in the middle-end by exercising code that is
> sometimes rarely used in other front-ends.
>
> So in short, I'm in favor of this change.
I wouldn't m
> > I'd like to reiterate a request from the summit that is related to the
> > default languages discussion: Add Ada to the default languages in
> > exchange
> > for java+libjava. It builds nicely parallel (and fairly quick), doesn't
>
> I should point out while supporting this (and, in general,
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Michael Matz wrote:
> I'd like to reiterate a request from the summit that is related to the
> default languages discussion: Add Ada to the default languages in exchange
> for java+libjava. It builds nicely parallel (and fairly quick), doesn't
I should point out while sup
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and
>>> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:37, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 2:00 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> I made it pretty clear that as long as the autotesters build java, and I
>> get emails when something breaks, and you have the obligation to fix
>> whatever broke, I have no objection.
>
> Great.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and
>> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to
>> > fix the problem. All we're changing is whe
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and
> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to
> > fix the problem. All we're changing is whether you build Java by
> > default; nothing else.
>
> Agree
On 11/18/2010 2:00 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I made it pretty clear that as long as the autotesters build java, and I
> get emails when something breaks, and you have the obligation to fix
> whatever broke, I have no objection.
Great. In contrast to Ian's statement, then, I think we *do* have a
On 11/18/10 02:23, Mark Mitchell wrote:
On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
bui
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 09:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
Su
On 11/18/2010 09:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
>>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off,
On 11/11/2010 3:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
>> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
>> building it when java is explicitly
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
> Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
> building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
> --enable-languages
On 11/02/2010 03:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression t
On 11/02/10 09:35, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files
Jeff> (the names escape me) and the rather poor coarse level parallelism
Jeff> (can't build the 32bit and 64bit multilibs in parallel for example).
J
> "Laurent" == Laurent GUERBY writes:
Laurent> Let's imagine we have a reliable tool on a distributed build
Laurent> farm that accepts set of patches (via mail and web with some
Laurent> authentification) and does automatic regression testing and
Laurent> report on selected platform.
Can we
> "Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files
Jeff> (the names escape me) and the rather poor coarse level parallelism
Jeff> (can't build the 32bit and 64bit multilibs in parallel for example).
Jeff> Has anyone looked at fixing the
Laurent GUERBY writes:
> Let's imagine we have a reliable tool on a distributed build farm that
> accepts set of patches (via mail and web with some authentification) and
> does automatic regression testing and report on selected platform.
>
> This would enable more ambitious in our testing requi
On 11/02/2010 10:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> Quoting Geert Bosch :
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end pa
On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression testing?
No, the language will only be built
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 08:59 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/31/2010 07:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > This patch should not of course change whether or not distros choose to
> > package the Java compiler; undoubtedly they would continue to do so,
> > just as they package the Ada compiler
> I'd personally prefer java over ada as I'm able to understand java code
> easier, thus when something does go wrong I'm able to debug it much faster.
If this can make any difference: even if Ada is enabled by default, we (I at
least) will still be there to analyze hard-to-debug problems exposed
On 31.10.2010 20:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
--enable-languages. Among the people
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Comments? Approvals?
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
>> Other than massively increasing build tim
On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Comments? Approvals?
FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
substantial benefits for having java enabled by
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
>>> that there should be at least one default language that requires
>>
> More seriously, Ada permits all sorts of integer subtypes which do not,
> as far as I know, exist in Java. Ada is also the only frontend which
> generates PLACEHOLDER_EXPR.
And it heavily uses variable-sized types.
Andrew Haley writes:
> Out of interest, why would Ada expose more midle-end bugs?
TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE (for some definition of "bug").
More seriously, Ada permits all sorts of integer subtypes which do not,
as far as I know, exist in Java. Ada is also the only frontend which
generates PLACEHOLDER_
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Is there anything we could do to change your mind?
>
> Yes, if we have an autotester that runs the libgcj test suite and
> mails maintainers (or the list) when they break things.
>
I don't mind enabling Java in my autotesters for Linux/ia3
On 11/01/2010 06:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Comments? Approvals?
>
> FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
> Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
> substantial benefits for having
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Comments? Approvals?
FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
substantial benefits for having java enabled by default. Ada, on the
other hand, has show
On 11/01/2010 05:50 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher writes:
>
> Steven> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
> Steven> that there should be at least one default language that requires
> Steven> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many pat
> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher writes:
Steven> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
Steven> that there should be at least one default language that requires
Steven> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
Steven> I did experimental
Dave Korn writes:
> On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
>> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large
>> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the
>> amount of t
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression testing?
No, the language will only be built if a suitable bootstrap compiler
is present.
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> Feel free to enable Ada. Builds and tests faster than Java,
>> and is known to expose many more middle end bugs, including
>> ones that require non-call exceptions.
>
> But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
> Will th
On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large
> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the
> amount of time it takes to test change
On 01/11/2010 03:48, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
>> configure --disable-libgcj. I have been using this for my daily
>> bootstraps for
On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
>> that there should be at least one default language that requires
>> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without
On 10/31/2010 07:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This patch should not of course change whether or not distros choose to
> package the Java compiler; undoubtedly they would continue to do so,
> just as they package the Ada compiler today.
>
> Comments? Approvals?
I see your point, but this wil
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
that there should be at least one default language that requires
non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
I did experimental
On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
> that there should be at least one default language that requires
> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
> I did experimental builds with just
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
>
> configure --disable-libgcj. I have been using this for my daily
> bootstraps for a while.
But it does not test java. Since t
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
configure --disable-libgcj. I have been using this for my daily
bootstraps for a while.
Gerald
Hello,
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This is not a proposal to remove the Java frontend nor is it leading up
> to that. It is a proposal to not build the frontend by default, putting
> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) bu
50 matches
Mail list logo
