This is the mail archive of the java-patches@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] | |
(And I mean "outstanding" in a they're-not-in-yet sense.) > > - someone approve these two as-is: > > > > - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00283.html > > - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00390.html > > > > We can always quibble about whether we use _Jv_AllocBytes() > > or _Jv_Malloc() later. > > > > - then I redo this in terms of the above two and resubmit: > > > > - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00111.html > > > > - then someone approves the above > > > > - then I can check these in and DISABLE_JAVA_NET will be > > gone forever. I'd need to slightly modify my cleanup patch > > before checking it in. > >Go ahead. > >Andrew. I checked these in: - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00283.html - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00390.html ...and redid the attached MinGW networking/cleanup patch in terms of the above two. The only other slight change is that I moved the jvm.h include into win32.h and out of all of the nat*Win32.cc files. Tom said he wouldn't be doing a deeper review of this and Ranjit and Michael said that they were okay with the previous variant. Okay for liftoff? If so, my last remaining patch is this one: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00427.html If both of these are approved, I'll celebrate by putting out a fresh MinGW build and announcing to the world that it built straight from CVS. -- Mohan http://www.thisiscool.com/ http://www.animalsong.org/
Attachment:
w32clnet.tar.bz2
Description: application/bzip2
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |