On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As long as it doesn't suffer bitrot, it doesn't much matter whether
> gcj is a part of a single gcc tarball or not.
That may be the case for most GNU/Linux distros. On Gentoo or FreeBSD,
for example, thousands and thousands of users (of the FreeBSD port
On 16/06/11 01:43, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is
>>> on the verge of becoming practically irrelevant. As one datapoint, the
>>> entire FreeBSD Ports Collection has a single(!) port relying o
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is
>> on the verge of becoming practically irrelevant. As one datapoint, the
>> entire FreeBSD Ports Collection has a single(!) port relying on GCJ.
> It's not quite as irrelevant as you t
On 05/29/2011 02:07 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is
> on the verge of becoming practically irrelevant. As one datapoint, the
> entire FreeBSD Ports Collection has a single(!) port relying on GCJ.
It's not quite as irrelevant as
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> For libjava I would argue to split out only libjava/classpath which
> is what we drop in (in a slightly modified form?) from elsewhere.
> So splitting that would eventually make sense (maybe even
> with making java also compile w/o that classpath dir)
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> ...at least having the testsuite and Java separate makes a lot of sense.
>
> The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is
If building GCC from source, running tests is generally considered a good
idea...
> on the verge of be
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> Yes ... on the other hand, this does not address the other issue, which
>> is the amount of disk space that you need to actually uncompress the
>> tarballs :-(
>>
>> Unpacking gcc-4.6.0.tar.xx requi
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Yes ... on the other hand, this does not address the other issue, which
> is the amount of disk space that you need to actually uncompress the
> tarballs :-(
>
> Unpacking gcc-4.6.0.tar.xx requires about 600 MB. Unpacking
> gcc-core-4.6.0.tar.xx
> requi
Maybe we can offer an additional compression format like lzma .xz
which brings down 4.5.3 compressed size from 66MB bz2 to 52MB (with
-7).
But that can be decided separately.
Yes ... on the other hand, this does not address the other issue,
which is the
amount of disk space that you need
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011, Nicola Pero wrote:
>
>> As a consequence, GTFILES is different depending on whether
>> ${srcdir}/gcc/cp/ exists or not. If it exists, usually the cp gtfiles
>> come before the objc ones (due to alphabetical ordering by
On Sat, 21 May 2011, Nicola Pero wrote:
> As a consequence, GTFILES is different depending on whether
> ${srcdir}/gcc/cp/ exists or not. If it exists, usually the cp gtfiles
> come before the objc ones (due to alphabetical ordering by the shell,
> I'd guess ?), and the cp gtfiles contain c-fam
11 matches
Mail list logo
