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: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>, Tom Tromey <tom at tromey 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 12:26:04 -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> <55D58ED0 dot 1020402 at ubuntu dot com> <55D5909B dot 3080207 at redhat dot com> <401143105 dot 13318272 dot 1440082676204 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <55D5F1C8 dot 7060003 at redhat dot com> <55D5F681 dot 5060809 at redhat dot com> <1092027746 dot 13351972 dot 1440086614051 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <55D5FB79 dot 5020004 at redhat dot com>
----- Original Message -----
> On 08/20/2015 05:03 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > The issue is that we're still supporting a version of OpenJDK/IcedTea where
> > there is no previous version (6).
>
> Surely OpenJDK 6 can build itself. And in the unlikely event of an
> entirely new architecture which has No OpenJDK we'd have to grab an
> old GCJ and build it with that.
>
> If GCJ is included as part of GCC but is not maintained and tested, it
> will soon rot. That isn't an option IMO.
>
> Andrew.
>
I agree and I'm not saying keep it forever. Just give us a little time
to adapt to its removal by obsoleting now and removing it in the next
release cycle, rather than deleting it now six months before a release.
It's not just "entirely new architecture"s that have no OpenJDK, but
any system which, for whatever reason, doesn't have a binary available.
GCC follows this process of obsolescence then removal for ports (e.g. [0]).
I don't see why a language port should be any different.
[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
--
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