This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: GCC releases [was Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure]

To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Subject: Re: GCC releases [was Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure]
From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Date: 24 Apr 2001 12:27:03 -0600
Cc: bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz, aoliva at redhat dot com, jsturm at one-point dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, oldham at codesourcery dot com
References: <orbspnsh4v.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20010423101259Z.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <3AE4E32F.7902E189@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <20010424104824G.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

Mark> In fact, as soon as we ship 3.0, I would like to start the
Mark> process of stabilizing to branch for 3.1!

I'd like to see that too.  Java seems to change more quickly than the
other parts of gcc, probably because it is younger and less complete.
Even one release a year would probably be too few for Java.  OTOH
maybe Java could do more frequent runtime releases without a full gcc
release.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC releases [was Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure]
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- GCC releases [was Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h build failure]
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: GCC releases [was Re: ia64 libjava java-signal.h buildfailure]
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]