Could we change the subject for responses to this strand of the debate?
Alec
On 20/11/13 20:27, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first
There's a point where this becomes change for the sake of change
perhaps we should stick with if it's not broken, make no attempt to fix
it.
Is Java's presence hurting anyone. Yes. Is GCJ's presence hurting
anyone? No.
That was phrased badly, I hate Java, but GCJ can make it produce
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is ready for any use one
might care to put it to. The
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
Side issue clarification. I
On 11/20/2013 1:45 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
language that looks cool but has yet to mature.
Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/13 09:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jeff == Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Jeff Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
Jeff languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
Jeff
The machine is an older quad core, so if you're building one something
with more cores and Ada + its runtime parallelizes better than java +
its runtime, then you'd probably see materially different results.
What happens if you do
make STAGE1_CFLAGS=-O -g -j4
instead of a bare make -j4 on
On 11/14/13 04:50, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The machine is an older quad core, so if you're building one something
with more cores and Ada + its runtime parallelizes better than java +
its runtime, then you'd probably see materially different results.
What happens if you do
make
* Jeff Law:
At least for Linux systems, the bootstrapping problem is largely a
solved problem by the major vendors.
Debian is special because GNAT is typically built from a different GCC
release than the rest of the distribution because two Ada transitions
in a single release cycle are a bit
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no? Just keeping
the bytecode compiler and GIJ should be enough? That way we can
strip the classpath copy of everything that isn't needed, thus not
provide a Java library. Reduces testing
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no? Just keeping
the bytecode compiler and GIJ should be enough? That way we can
strip the classpath copy of everything that
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no? Just keeping
the bytecode compiler and GIJ should be enough? That way we
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
At least we don't need a Java source code frontend, no? Just
On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 10:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
At least we
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 12:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 11:29 AM,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
need? Is this a mayor issue?
It was one of the major complaints we received when dropping the
split of the distributed tarballs, that is, no more
On 11/13/2013 01:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
need? Is this a mayor issue?
It was one of the major complaints we received when dropping the
split of the
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 01:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
need? Is this a mayor issue?
It was one of
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm thinking that waiting time is not so much of an issue (you
can interleave other work). People not testing all languages and
breaking bootstrap for others is the problem (that includes dropping
in not
Richard == Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Richard Whatever the core language runtime would be - I'm somewhat a
Richard Java ignorant.
The core is quite large, unless you are also willing to track through
all the code and chop out the bits you don't want for testing. This
Jeff == Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Jeff Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
Jeff languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
Jeff I'm unsure how best to proceed.
IIRC from upthread the main reason to keep one of these languages is
On 11/13/13 09:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jeff == Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Jeff Given the problems Ian outlined around adding Go to the default
Jeff languages and the build time issues with using Ada instead of Java,
Jeff I'm unsure how best to proceed.
IIRC from upthread the main reason
On 11/13/13 04:06, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, I'm thinking that waiting time is not so much of an issue (you
can interleave other work). People not testing all languages and
breaking bootstrap for others is the problem (that includes dropping
in not tested libgo updates - a reason why I never
On 11/13/13 05:51, Andrew Haley wrote:
I also want to reduce repository size by removing parts of (or you
say all of?) classpath, retaining only those portions we need for
bootstrap regtest.
Really? Wouldn't it make more sense for people to check out what they
need? Is this a mayor issue?
Across 10 runs we came in right at 70 minutes with the usual ~20 second
variance. So it's slightly slower than the default languages right now.
That doesn't help the cycle time for developers which was the major
point for me.
Your results still look a little strange to me...
As for Ada,
On 11/13/13 11:55, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Across 10 runs we came in right at 70 minutes with the usual ~20 second
variance. So it's slightly slower than the default languages right now.
That doesn't help the cycle time for developers which was the major
point for me.
Your results still look a
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:67 minutes
default - java: 51
On 11/11/2013 09:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go
On 11/12/13 00:19, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
The underlying problem seems to be the requirement
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:38:15AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well just
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
These will be checked by bots and when there is a failure on closed bug it
will be reopened.
No, don't reopen old bugs unless it turns out the patch claimed to fix the
bug didn't fix it at all, or needed to be reverted. Open new bugs when
all you
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 04:12:51PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
These will be checked by bots and when there is a failure on closed bug it
will be reopened.
No, don't reopen old bugs unless it turns out the patch claimed to fix the
bug didn't
On 11/11/13 07:38, Andi Kleen wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Thoughts or comments?
If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
There's no
Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do
Am 09.11.2013 01:24, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
So instead of proposing that we just remove Java from the default languags,
I propose that we replace Java with Go.
I'm certainly in favor of removing Java from the set of default
Am 08.11.2013 23:21, schrieb Jeff Law:
GCJ has, IMHO, moved from active development into a deep maintenance mode.
I
suspect this is largely due to the change of focus of key developers to
OpenJDK
and other projects. GCJ played a role in bootstrapping OpenJDK, both
technically and
On 11/11/13 14:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
The last news item related to Java was 2009 and scanning the ChangeLog doesn't
show significant project activity (~14 changes in 2013, most of which look like
routine maintenance in the language front-end. There's even fewer changes
occurring in the
On 11/09/13 04:12, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:67 minutes
default - java: 51
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable
* Richard Biener:
Oh, can we consider dropping java alltogether please?
At least we could remove all those pregenerated files.
On 11/09/13 08:44, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should it be
On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it
On 11/09/13 04:12, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java
Right now Go does not build on a range of targets, notably including
Windows, MacOS, AIX, and most embedded systems. We would have to
disable it by default on targets that are not supported, which is
straightforward (we already have rules to disable java on targets it
does not support). But
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should it be replaced?
Alec
On 09/11/13 11:55,
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should
GCJ has, IMHO, moved from active development into a deep maintenance
mode.I suspect this is largely due to the change of focus of key
developers to OpenJDK and other projects. GCJ played a role in
bootstrapping OpenJDK, both technically and politically and had OpenJDK
not happened, I
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
Thoughts or comments?
I fully support this. I've been wanting to remove Java from the
default bootstrap for a long time now. Bringing in Go seems like a
good idea as well.
Diego.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
So instead of proposing that we just remove Java from the default languags,
I propose that we replace Java with Go.
I'm certainly in favor of removing Java from the set of default
languages.
I'm less sure about adding Go.
Right
59 matches
Mail list logo
