This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: About java.security and AWT patches
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: About java.security and AWT patches
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
On 24 Apr 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> It seems certain to me that we won't finish enough of AWT before gcc 3.0
> to make compiling AWT applications much less hit-or-miss than it is
> now. I'd prefer that we start being more strict about what we put on
> the branch.
Fine by me. Especially for packages like java.awt or java.security, since
these are mostly independent of compiler or runtime changes. Anyone who
really needs updated AWT with the 3.0 release can just build it
themselves.
> What do you think about that? I'm actually open to almost anything we
> decide collectively. Is there anybody but Bryce and me who has an
> opinion?
Sure. For my needs 3.0 is almost good to go. Here's my short list:
- Date/calendar bugs.
Warren already fixed the parsing bugs in java.text.SimpleDateFormat but I
have some work to do on java.util.Calendar. If I don't have it ready
this week I'll just submit a PR.
- Libtool strangeness.
This is causing builds to break on at least some GNU/Linux releases and
Cygwin. After the EH merge, perhaps we can dump libsupc++ as Zack
demonstrated on the branch. That should prevent the error, which only
crops up when linking C++.
- Hash synchronization patch.
It'd be nice to have, but I'd guess this must wait for 3.1?
- Cygwin.
If it turns out the patches needed for a good Cygwin build are small and
low-risk, I hope they make it into 3.0. Most of these improve
portability anyway, e.g. for targets without weak pointer support.
Jeff