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]

Re: [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Robert Millan <zeratul2 at wanadoo dot es>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, java-patches 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 14:56:00 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
References: <20030910170356.GA833@aragorn><20030911015202.GA502@aragorn><87ad9c19bo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com><16224.14927.799124.529769@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><20030912154147.GA749@aragorn>

[ lists trimmed ]

Robert Millan writes:

 > 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?

Sure, we don't need 100% passes, but I want to know which tests fail.
Some of them are relatively unimportant, and some are drop-dead
critical.

Andrew.

References:
- Re: [Glibc-bsd-hackers] [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
  - From: Robert Millan
- Re: [Glibc-bsd-hackers] [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: [Glibc-bsd-hackers] [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [PATCH] GNU/KFreeBSD support in lib{java, stdc++-v3}
  - From: Robert Millan

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