Argument Against Removal of GCJ

[Andrew Haley]

On 22/02/17 05:52, R0b0t1 wrote:
> I have found GCJ to be one of the best methods for bootstrapping
> OpenJDK. No other method of adding support for new architectures that
> does not involve working closely with OpenJDK upstream is known to me.

That doesn't matter any more because OpenJDK has full cross-compiler
support.

> Many of the users of GCJ and GNU Classpath do not know they are users
> and, even if they do know, are not aware that it is being considered
> for removal from the GCC nor aware of this mailing list. The GNU Java
> frontend is often the only usable "JRE" for poorly supported, old, or
> very new systems. Users of these systems need Java environments first
> produced with GCJ or GCJ itself.

I don't think that's true any more: OpenJDK supports just as many
GNU/Linux systems as did GCJ, as far as I know.  Perhaps more.  The
Zero VM allows OpenJDK to run on anything that has a working C++
compiler.

> That the Java capabilities are not receiving development does not mean
> they are not useful, nor is that a good reason to remove them.

That's easy for you to say.  Systems must be maintained or they rot.
We need maintainers.

Andrew.