Patch: java.net win32 - removing unused code

[Andrew Haley]

Mohan Embar writes:
 > Hi Michael,
 > 
 > >I would like to commit the attached patch to trunk. It removes the
 > >code enclosed by the DISABLE_JAVA_NET defines. This code is unused
 > >because when --disable-java-net is specified these files are not used
 > >during build time (then the *NoNet.cc versions are used).
 > 
 > THE PROBLEM
 > 
 > As we talked about before, I have already done this (and much, much more)
 > here:
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00111.html
 > 
 > But this patch is in a wait state pending this one:
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00390.html
 > 
 > ...which Bryce said he is okay with with one exception:
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00391.html
 > 
 > ...but for which I am getting discrepancies with his theory as to
 > which is faster:
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00392.html
 > 
 > :( :( :(

It doesn't matter.  Check it in.

 > I would also need to reconcile the cleanup patch with this one:
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00283.html
 > 
 > MOHAN'S PRESCRIPTION
 > 
 > - someone approve these two as-is:
 > 
 >   - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00283.html
 >   - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00390.html
 > 
 >     We can always quibble about whether we use _Jv_AllocBytes()
 >     or _Jv_Malloc() later.
 > 
 > - then I redo this in terms of the above two and resubmit:
 > 
 >   - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00111.html
 > 
 > - then someone approves the above
 > 
 > - then I can check these in and DISABLE_JAVA_NET will be
 >   gone forever. I'd need to slightly modify my cleanup patch
 >   before checking it in.

Go ahead.

Andrew.