Re: merging in java-related changes into gcc3 branch

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

> Which changes?

All my changes so far.  Some of them are unneeded, but I think it is
easier for me to catch problems if the two branches are in sync.

As soon as I get things to a place where things basically work for
me, then I will ease off on the changes, and only check in urgent
fixes, at least in the branch.  That is getting very close, I feel.

> I'm concerned because I want to make sure we don't destabilize the 3.0
> gcj unnecessarily.

Yes.  That is why I'll be beating on the gcc 3.0 trunk.  If it doesn't
handle Kawa, it is little use to me.  And I think Kawa is a good
somewhat large (55k lines of Java code + some Scheme code) test application,
and it has its own significant testsuite.

> I agree your goal is fine.  However my concern
> arises because I've seen bug reports against the trunk gcj that as far
> as I know haven't been addressed (see Zack's recent messages).

His last message said the situation was significnatly improved.  He
saw lots of errors "caused by libgcj.so, libgcjgc.so, and libzgcj.so
being fed to jc1 instead of the linker".  I guess these could be
related to my changes to jvspec.c.  His other problems were
related to bytecode compilation - I'm working on bytecode compilation
right now.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/