Re: Is gcj dead?

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yuri wrote:
>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007.
>>>>>> Yes, we should update that.  There hasn't been a lot of  new gcj development,
>>>>>> but it is maintained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all.
>>>>>> Which ones?
>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816
>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change.
>>> Point taken.
>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK
>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA.
>> Really?  That's all rather amazing.  Is there no simple workaround?
> 
> Compilation error can be found here:
> 
> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html
> 
> And source:
> 
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate
> 
> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of
> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO.

Yes, I see what's going on.

To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes
a difference is where it's already broken.  I'm tempted to make the change
now.

Andrew.