Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

On 11/01/2010 05:50 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <[email protected]> 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 builds with just C, C++, and Fortran, only to find
> Steven> lots of java test suite failures in a complete bootstrap+test cycle.
> Steven> So the second point is, IMVHO, not really true.
> 
> Is it possible to convert all failures of this form into a C++ test case
> with -fnon-call-exceptions?  If so then at least there is a way to add
> regression tests.

In practice, no.  We don't know what the C++ equivalent is until we've
seen the Java (or Ada) test failure.  In the Rumsfeld epistemology it's
an unknown uknown, something that we don't know we don't know.

> Steven> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
> 
> As far as I'm aware, not at present.  I think even the minimal possible
> subset of libjava is pretty big, on the order of hundreds of classes,
> IIRC.

And the failures I've seen have been in some of the crazy cases, not
just simple Java code, where things get complicated.

Andrew.