GCJ/minGW produced executables and linux/wine
Tue Mar 4 18:13:00 GMT 2003
Ranjit Mathew writes:
> > > Is it *really* built as an SJLJ target? I mean, unless you specify
> > > "--enable-sjlj-exceptions" explicitly during GCC configuration, it
> > > builds as a DWARF-2 EH using target. In which case exceptions would
> > > not work in the interpreter at all without DW2 EH information in
> > > libffi for Win32.
> > Indeed. Has gcj on that target ever worked with DWARF2 exceptions?
> Yes, statically linked executables do work fine. Only interpreted
> programs have problems due to the reason (I strongly believe) cited
What, even unwinding through invoke() ?
> > > And without all the recent patches for addr2line
> > > and c++filt (*ahem* Andrew ;-)) backtraces wouldn't work either.
> > Ah, you're still waiting on those. Sorry. One problem is that I
> > can't test them. Is it true that although you have done the FSF
> > paperwork, you don't have write access?
> Yes, I have done the paperwork but I refused the write access when
> Tom offered this to me because I believe (as do others, including
> Linus) that write access to the CVS should only be with a small
> group of solid, trustworthy individuals. That way you can ensure
> the quality and security of the code being checked in.
Nonsense. If the maintainer can't test the patches, how can anything
be ensured? And no, I am not about to set up a Windows box specialy
for the purpose.
If I was a kernel hacker I'd have to put up with Linus' opinions about
source control, but this is gcc so I don't. It is unfair and
unreasonable to place the additional burden of checking in patches on
More information about the Java