This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Argument Against Removal of GCJ
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: R0b0t1 <r030t1 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:34:24 +0000
- Subject: Re: Argument Against Removal of GCJ
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAD4mYjm8DefUrwvHtwgh_7LpX=tz3xR52k7qfxeZUWyDj4yLA@mail.gmail.com>
On 22/02/17 05:52, R0b0t1 wrote:
> I have found GCJ to be one of the best methods for bootstrapping
> OpenJDK. No other method of adding support for new architectures that
> does not involve working closely with OpenJDK upstream is known to me.
That doesn't matter any more because OpenJDK has full cross-compiler
> Many of the users of GCJ and GNU Classpath do not know they are users
> and, even if they do know, are not aware that it is being considered
> for removal from the GCC nor aware of this mailing list. The GNU Java
> frontend is often the only usable "JRE" for poorly supported, old, or
> very new systems. Users of these systems need Java environments first
> produced with GCJ or GCJ itself.
I don't think that's true any more: OpenJDK supports just as many
GNU/Linux systems as did GCJ, as far as I know. Perhaps more. The
Zero VM allows OpenJDK to run on anything that has a working C++
> That the Java capabilities are not receiving development does not mean
> they are not useful, nor is that a good reason to remove them.
That's easy for you to say. Systems must be maintained or they rot.
We need maintainers.