Is gcj dead?

[Andrew Haley]

Joel Dice wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yuri wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that.  There hasn't been a lot of  new gcj
>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>> but it is maintained.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response
>>>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>> Which ones?
>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816
>>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change.
>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK
>>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA.
>>>> Really?  That's all rather amazing.  Is there no simple workaround?
>>>
>>> Compilation error can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html
>>>
>>> And source:
>>>
>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate
>>>
>>>
>>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of
>>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO.
>>
>> Yes, I see what's going on.
>>
>> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes
>> a difference is where it's already broken.  I'm tempted to make the
>> change
>> now.
> 
> On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime
> time:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474

I don't understand the comment

"I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second (since I'm
not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)."

What second case is that?

BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it would have
gone straight in.

Andrew.