This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Build-Breaking MingW 3.3 Stuff
- From: Michael Koch <konqueror at gmx dot de>
- To: gnustuff at thisiscool dot com, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCJ Java <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:29:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: Build-Breaking MingW 3.3 Stuff
- References: <31PM09C05206FBQP3VIDQPXTSQYVJE87.3e9aafb6@p733>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 14. April 2003 14:55 schrieb Mohan Embar:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > > >I can't help thinking that life would be much nicer if
> > > > java.nio and java.net had an OS abstraction layer that both
> > > > used. That way, fixing problems like this wouldn't touch
> > > > common code.
> > >
> > > This approach was discussed at length, but in the end,
> > > Adam Megacz decided against it and instead
> > > recommended forking the Win32 net code and Posix code
> > > completely:
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2003-01/msg00093.html
> >
> >Sounds like that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
>
> I thought you were suggesting an OS abstraction layer at C library
> level, not the JNI level.
>
> >That patch doesn't seem to touch java.nio, which is where the
> > problem we're discussing lies.
>
> You're right. I had eyeballed the patch and assumed java.nio was in
> there too. We'll also need a fork for natFileChannelImpl.cc when
> this is eventually implemented.
Well, the code in CVS is a placeholder or something like that. It
doesnt really work yet. I only took care that it compiled on my box.
Michael
- --
Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+p9iTWSOgCCdjSDsRAijAAJ95jKxWQH+Ylh12vZpZG6FzPWWIeACeI9Gb
pGGbrj97BxB3qj4v+3qj+fw=
=GxXR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----