On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 13:50 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Anthony Green <green@xxxxxxxxxx> [2005-03-15 13:43]: > > > > Why bother compiling to bytecode in the stage 1? We can avoid this bug > > by simply compiling straight to native code from the java source. > > Actually, on second thought, I don't know if this will work. We need the > system's java-gcj-compat to use the ecj we've just built (with gcj) and the > only way I can think of doing this is by setting GCJ_PROPERTIES. > > I guess I could compile the stuff to a binary called "javac" and set > PATH=.:$PATH, but I'm not sure some of the stuff provided by > java-gcj-compat won't fail. I'm not sure I understand. For the stage2 build, were you expecting to use java-gcj-compat and a classmap database to get the stage1 built compiler? In that case you could simple compile the stage1 bytecode _after_ you build the native code. AG
