Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning

On 08/13/2015 04:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will
>>>> asynch-exceptions
>>>> Jeff> be tested and the like.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that either there is some other language which needs this
>>>> -- in which case that language ought to have testing for the feature --
>>>> or the feature is only used by gcj, in which case it doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>> Of course is!=ought; but relying on gcj and libjava to provide this
>>>> small amount of testing seems like a bad cost/benefit tradeoff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Go does use asynchronous exceptions, and has test cases that rely on
>>> them working.
>>
>> If you're comfortable with Go at this point and we have mechanisms in place
>> to ensure Go only gets built on platforms that support Go, then I think we
>> should go forward with replacing GCJ with Go.
>
> I think replacing it with Ada makes more sense (still have some
> systems where a ton
> of Go tests fail presumably because of too old glibc/kernel).
>
> Or just replace it with nothing as effectively neither Go nor Ada are
> going to be enabled
> for all primary host platforms (as for Ada you need an Ada host
> compiler for example).
Neither Ada nor Go are perfect.  However, Ada should be at a point 
where, if you have a suitable host compiler, it should build and 
regression test.

For Go, if there's platforms where the tests are unreliable, then it 
needs to be disabled on that platform until the tests are reliable. 
That's the key thing in my mind -- building and regression testing.

Thus I'd support either or both between Ada and Go.  In fact the more I 
think about it, the more I think both ought to be enabled and GCJ 
disabled for the default build.

jeff