GCJ/minGW produced executables and linux/wine

Andrew Haley aph@redhat.com
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
 > above.

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
the maintainers.


More information about the Java mailing list