* Anthony Green <green@xxxxxxxxxx> [2005-03-15 15:16]: > 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? Yes. > In that case you could simple compile the stage1 bytecode _after_ you > build the native code. :) Good point. I will try that. Does anyone have any comments about my original problem? That's stopping me from progressing with this since and it means that I can't build eclipse right now. Andrew
