From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24315 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2003 15:56:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact eclipse-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: eclipse-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24304 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 15:56:39 -0000 To: neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) Cc: eclipse@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GCC/GCJ versions?... References: <20030808042906.GA17292@twcny.rr.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom X-Zippy: I just forgot my whole philosophy of life!!! Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030808042906.GA17292@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: <87adak175z.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode writes: Nathanael> I notice you're using the tree-ssa version of GCJ (with Nathanael> extra patches?). Is this essential, or is it possible to Nathanael> use the mainline version which will become GCC 3.4? If Nathanael> mainline doesn't work, are the changes backportable? Nathanael> It would certainly be nice if 3.4 could Do The Right Thing. The gcc trunk would be fine. The patches should back-port pretty easily. I'm going to start putting some of the patches in pretty soon. Probably after next week. There are some problems though. First, I don't have the rationale for a couple of the patches. Maybe they're in the archives of our internal mailing list; I'll look there, but if the info isn't there then... ugh. Maybe they'll turn out not to be necessary :-) The miranda patch turns out to have a bug, which we discovered quite recently. If you apply it to the gcc trunk, I think you won't be able to rebuild libgcj. So that patch needs reworking. And, finally, the patch to disable the gcj verifier is unacceptable. But due to bugs in that verifier we can't compile eclipse with gcj. Fixing it looks like quite a bit of work (hence all the discussion about putting C++ into the front ends a while back...). I'm not sure when this will happen. This is the most likely candidate for missing the 3.4 timeline. Tom