This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning
- From: Andrew Hughes <gnu dot andrew at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>, Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4YCSbA_2V8jNF1QtcM8b4EF8mJzTD7PyU9ETZ-uSyemsw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4bj7q=U+yHrd=+U9NgB=wMQtarvAEw-uAW9xL6SC09keQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55CA44C8 dot 7000209 at redhat dot com> <87mvxxdxys dot fsf at tromey dot com> <141970419 dot 12686720 dot 1440038099721 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <87y4h68tk3 dot fsf at tromey dot com> <55D58ED0 dot 1020402 at ubuntu dot com> <55D5909B dot 3080207 at redhat dot com>
----- Original Message -----
> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
> >> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
> >>
> >> Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html
> >
> > if you need bootstrapping OpenJDK 6 or OpenJDK 7, then having gcj
> > available for the target platform is required. Starting with OpenJDK
> > 8 you should be able to cross build OpenJDK 8 with an OpenJDK 8
> > available on the cross platform. It might be possible to cross
> > build older OpenJDK versions, but this usually is painful.
>
> Sure, but we don't need GCJ going forward. I don't think that there
> are any new platforms to which OpenJDK has not been ported which will
> require GCJ to bootstrap. And even if there are, anybody who needs to
> do that can (and, indeed, should) use an earlier version of GCJ. It's
> not going to go away; it will always be in the GCC repos. And because
> newer versions of GCC may break GCJ (and maybe OpenJDK) it makes more
> sense to use an old GCC/GCJ for the bootstrapping of an old OpenJDK.
>
I don't see how we don't at present. How else do you solve the chicken-and-egg
situation of needing a JDK to build a JDK? I don't see crossing your fingers and
hoping there's a binary around somewhere as a very sustainable system.
>From a personal point of view, I need gcj to make sure each new IcedTea 1.x and 2.x
release bootstraps. I don't plan to hold my system GCC at GCC 5 for the next decade
or however long we plan to support IcedTea 2.x / OpenJDK 7. It's also still noticeably
faster building with a native ecj than OpenJDK's javac.
It would cause me and others a lot of pain to remove gcj at this point. What exactly
is the reason to do so, other than some sudden whim?
> Andrew.
>
--
Andrew :)
Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
PGP Key: rsa4096/248BDC07 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07