Re: Stable release?

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

Bryce> gcj has come a long way, but I'm not sure if its really ready
Bryce> for a stable release yet. Inner class support in particular is
Bryce> really something that is turning people away and should be in
Bryce> the next release, and there are quite a few bugs in gnats that
Bryce> need to get fixed.

FWIW, while I agree that inner classes are very important, I also
think we have enough new stuff to do a release whether or not they are
ready.  I'd really like to be able to do libgcj releases as frequently
as we think they are necessary -- eg, whenever a major new feature is
added.

Bryce> Perhaps the best solution would be to make a "semi-official"
Bryce> patch against 2.95.2 and post it on the gcj website.

I think this is a plausible approach.  This would lessen our testing
problem, because we'd be working with a known gcc.  I'm inclined to
see what the gcc maintainers think before taking real action though.

If we do this, we'd want to make sure that the libgcj configure script
can detect when the gcj front end is the wrong version.  Then we could
have it spit out a URL where people can read about what to do.

Bryce> The jboolean bug I alluded to in 2.95.2 earlier actually does
Bryce> show up in the cvs version as well, so when it gets fixed there
Bryce> we can likely fix it in the 2.95.2 patch as well. (the bug only
Bryce> appears when you compile from .class files, .java compilation
Bryce> and the interpreter are unaffected).

I've seen some jboolean bugs in the past, but I could never reduce
them to a simple test.  Do you have a test?  Is there a PR?

Tom