Re: ping: Re: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2

[Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>]

Am 02.07.2013 21:04, schrieb Jon VanAlten:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthias Klose" <doko@ubuntu.com>
>> To: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "GCJ-patches" <java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "Tom Tromey" <tromey@redhat.com>, "Andrew Haley" <aph@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:36:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: ping: Re: [patch] update ecj to ecj-3.8.2/4.2.2
>>
>> On 06/26/13 21:23, Jon VanAlten wrote:
>>>
>>>  checkout:
>>> -	cvs -d $(cvsroot) co -r$(TAG) org.eclipse.jdt.core
>>> +#	git clone -b R3_8_maintenance
>>> git://git.eclipse.org/gitroot/jdt/eclipse.jdt.core.git
>>> +#	wget
>>> http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.core.git/snapshot/$(TAG).tar.gz
>>> +	tar xf $(TAG).tar.gz
>>>
>>> So "checkout" target no longer does a checkout... seems a bit off. Is
>>> the commented git clone line left over from doing some of this before
>>> the official tag existed? Might want to drop that, and consider
>>> renaming the target to reflect its new behaviour.
>>
>> sure, I can rename that.  any suggestion?  The purpose is to make it clear
>> where
>> the source do come from.
> 
> If my reading of this is correct, this make target now does some moving
> about of things that are already checked out into the local filesystem.
> My suggestion would be to call it "prepare-sources" or just "prepare".
> 
>>
>>> +	tar -c -f - -C $(TAG)/org.eclipse.jdt.core/compiler org \
>>> +	  | tar -x -f - -C org.eclipse.jdt.core/
>>>
>>> Am I missing something or is this equivalent and simpler:
>>>
>>> +	mv $(TAG)/org.eclipse.jdt.core/compiler/org org.eclipse.jdt.core/
>>>
>>> +	tar -c -f - -C $(TAG)/org.eclipse.jdt.core/batch org \
>>> +	  | tar -x -f - -C org.eclipse.jdt.core/
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> yes, not having to run the checkout / pull from the web again.
>>
> 
> Right, so doing it as "cp -ar" instead of a "mv" would accomplish same?
> 
>>> As for the GCCMain portion of the change, yes it looks both necessary
>>> and correct. We do same in Fedora package (once again sorry it didn't
>>> get posted upstream due to my ignorance), and it would be nice to drop
>>> the patch once this is in a release.
>>
>> yes, having this upstream would be appreciated.
>>
>> So besides the style how to do fetch the sources, this looks ok?
>>
> 
> Yep.
> 
>> Is there another newer released ecj version which should be used instead?
>>
> 
> Let's check the authoritative source[1] for that.  It does seem as though
> they've done their 4.3 release, the sources for just ecj can be found
> under JDT Core Batch Compiler at [2].  News[3] does mention a few compiler
> improvements, but I might suggest to first push update to 3.8 and then
> update to latest in separate commit (so anyone else who consumes this can
> choose the version they prefer).
> 
> cheers,
> jon
> 
> [1] http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/
> [2] http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/R-4.3-201306052000/
> [3] http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/R-4.3-201306052000/news/eclipse-news-part2.html
> 

now updated to build from the 4.3.1 release (ecj itself identified as 3.9.0).
Renamed the download target into prepare, and removed the comment.

Test built libjava with --enable-maintainer-mode. No regressions.

Ok to checkin?

  Matthias

Attachment: eclipse-gcj.diff
Description: Text document