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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is gcj dead?


On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

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.

On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime time:


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474


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