5 ms·
If GCJ is to be removed as a default, and GCC-Go added as one, (I don't really have the expertise to say if doing those things is merited) then they should be d
by jlgreco 13y ago
If GCJ is to be removed as a default, and GCC-Go added as one, (I don't really have the expertise to say if doing those things is merited) then they should be done as two discrete changes: "GCJ was removed as a default. Incidentally, GCC-Go was added."
Trying to frame it as one discrete change is just going to get people needlessly emotional (if it hits the 'technews sphere' where editorializing and sensationalism reign supreme. Everyone seems level-headed in the mailing-list discussion for now.)
- kwantam 13y agoBut there is a technical justification for making both changes at once. Specifically, there is worry that removing GCJ and associated test suite will exercise fewer code paths in the collection, and the claim is that adding go will cover one obvious subset of these (-fnon-call-exceptions). If you read down the thread further, Ada has been suggested as a better replacement than Go to keep test coverage, since it builds on more machines and actually does a better job of exercising otherwise unused code paths.
- jlgreco 13y agoHmm, fair enough.
- sitkack 13y agoSince Ada is mutating more slowly I would advocate that it be included in GCC proper. Golang just doesn't make sense.
- RamiK 13y agoHonestly? The mailing list makes it sound like GCC is so convoluted it requires an entire front-end implementation as a test suit. I'm not saying it's true or anything. Just calling it like I see it...
- bebop 13y agoHow would you run a test suite without a programming language?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]