On Wed, 2005-04-05 at 23:49 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 23:44 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > > Yes, a separate ecj is a great idea. > > Hmm, on second thought, it depends how they're doing this. The archives > you've linked to require a username and password, so I can't see the > post. You have to sign up for an Eclipse.org account if you want to read the archives: http://dev.eclipse.org/newsManager/newsRequestForm.html > We only want one copy of ecj installed on the system. So if they're > proposing splitting out ecj from the rest of eclipse then that would be > very useful. (It would likely also solve their known-good compiler vs. > proper bootstrapping issues). But if they're just making ecj available > separately as well as with eclipse itself then it's not that useful to > us, since we'll always want to be using the in-eclipse ecj. In that > case we'd just stick with how we're packaging eclipse currently. It's not clear which way they want to go, but I imagine they would follow the SWT's lead and provide ECJ separately *and* include it with the Eclipse SDK. The post is asking about ahead of time compilation of ECJ and wondering how it is done. Nobody has responded yet so perhaps you should post your thoughts. Cheers, Ben
