This is the mail archive of the java@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]

Re: Is gcj dead?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

Joel Dice wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

Joel Dice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
Mathieu Malaterre wrote: 
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
wrote:
Mathieu Malaterre wrote: 
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
wrote:
Yuri wrote:
Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. 
Yes, we should update that.  There hasn't been a lot of  new gcj
development,
but it is maintained.

Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response
at all.
Which ones?
How about this one:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816
I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. 
Point taken.
In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as
VTK
on debian on arch such as HPPA.
Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround?

Compilation error can be found here:

http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html

And source:

http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate



I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of
the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO.

Yes, I see what's going on.

To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes
a difference is where it's already broken.  I'm tempted to make the
change
now.


On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime
time:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474

I don't understand the comment

"I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second
(since I'm
not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)."

What second case is that? 

Sorry it's not clear.  The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol
in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it
includes the sequence "__U".  Only the first case, in which the
underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed.

OK.

BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it
would have
gone straight in.


I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two
years ago:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html

I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches.

Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot.

No problem - I forgot about it, too, until now :)

It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived.
Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though.

Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape character or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?).

Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated code and legacy compatibility).

I'll have a look now.

Andrew.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]