--- Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan Beyer wrote: > > Check the commit log for 'build-java.xml'. That > snippet looks > > familiar; I'd swear it was like that at one point > and then removed > > because incremental compilation was failing. > > Yea, we don't want to use the old version of the > files we are compiling. > Ideally we want the bootclasspath to be empty -- > but as Matt discovered > the compiler adapter takes empty bootclasspath to be > default value (i.e. > the JRE JARs). > > For now I've set it to an arbitrary JAR that we > compile against. Please > check that it fixes the incremental build problem, > then I'll try and > figure out a more meaningful value to set. >
Or talk to the jdt/ecj team: 1) why they set includeJavaRuntime when bootclasspath is empty, and 2) if they can't or won't change that behavior, could they support a custom compilerarg or some other way to get around the issue... -Matt > Regards, > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
