lobotomizing libgcj

Fri May 11 11:15:00 GMT 2001

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > 
 > 
 > On 11 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
 > > I think what we want to avoid is more ad hoc configury.
 > 
 > I agree, except that I'd like to add --{enable,disable}-jni (with enable
 > the default). This would be easiest to do at configure time.
 > 
 > It wouldn't save much space though, I'd guess. The general problem of
 > omitting entire packages from the java tree is difficult.
We could build libgcj into a bunch of shared libraries. 
Trouble is, the dependency graph of a java library is so weird! The
way that every Java object depends on java.lang.Class, which in turn
has a reference to ClassLoader, which in turn references the
networking stack, and so on...
Perhaps, with a bit of care, it would be possible to break these
dependencies in a few specially chosen places.
Andrew.