Re: Is gcj dead?

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Joel Dice wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> I don't understand the comment
>>
>> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second
>> (since I'm
>> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)."
>>
>> What second case is that?
> 
> Sorry it's not clear.  The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol
> in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it
> includes the sequence "__U".  Only the first case, in which the
> underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed.

OK.

>> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it
>> would have
>> gone straight in.
> 
> I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two
> years ago:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html
> 
> I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches.

Oh no, I'm really sorry.  This was my fault, I simply forgot.

It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived.
Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though.

I'll have a look now.

Andrew.