Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

Dave Korn <[email protected]> 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 time it takes to test changes; 
>
>   Proposing to change the compiler as a solution to that problem seems to be a
> category error to me.  You can achieve the same end-result by social rather
> than technical means: just change the rules for patch submission to say "You
> don't have to test your patch against Java".

I think the two statements are essentially equivalent.  These days, when
most ordinary users get their compiler from a distro or other binary
form, the set of default languages is most important for gcc developers.
We currently say that for middle-end or backend patches you must
bootstrap with all default languages.  Changing the set of default
languages is a way of changing that statement.  It's not, in my opinion,
a category error.

Ian