This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
- From: Robert Millan <zeratul2 at wanadoo dot es>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, glibc-hackers at nongnu dot org,glibc-devel at lists dot alioth dot debian dot org
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:41:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
- Organisation: free as in freedom
- References: <20030910170356.GA833@aragorn> <20030911015202.GA502@aragorn> <87ad9c19bo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <16224.14927.799124.529769@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:03:11AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Tom Tromey writes:
> > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> writes:
> >
> >
> > Does the GC already work on your platform? What about the signal
> > handling stuff in MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR?
I'll look at that and the other *-linux* tests.
> We've had support added to libgcj before, and it turned out that
> although libgcj was enabled it didn't actually work. From now on, we
> must require good test results.
I haven't tested java yet, and c++ passes "make check" with a few failures.
It's not critical for us (GNU/KFreeBSD hackers) to have a 100% pass at "check".
(I'm more worried with the fact that we don't have a buildable GCC currently)
Would patches that don't make it 100% be ok to commit?
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)