libjava threads vs no-threads?

[Dave Korn]

On 23 April 2007 01:53, Mohan Embar wrote:

> Hi Dave,

  Hi Mohan, thanks for answering.

>>  Here's the patch from last December that introduced ParkHelper:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2006-q4/msg00246.html
>> but I couldn't find any discussion of the no-threads case in the related
>> conversation; I did, however, find a post from 2004 saying "Expect it to be
>> bit-rotted".
> 
> I was the one who did the ParkHelper refactoring and can confirm that
> accounting for the no-threads case wasn't a requirement for this patch
> being accepted. 
> The higher-ups can certainly comment more, but I was under the impression
> that the no-threads code seems untouched and unloved in all the years I've
> been on this list.

  That all makes sense to me.  It would make sense to tidy it up by removing
libjava/include/no-threads.h and making configure issue a fatal warning if
compiled without any --enable-threads option, wouldn't it?

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....