From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52346 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2016 10:27:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 52319 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2016 10:27:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=engineers, Hx-languages-length:1095, substantial, interest X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:27:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86286B040E for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-20.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.20]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8UARkHl023358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:27:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:42:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ Message-ID: <20160930102746.GB3223@redhat.com> References: <78f841e7-808b-58d0-7913-3ec0d19630a0@redhat.com> <84c4f4e2-3048-f5f8-de72-b2f704aa1389@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84c4f4e2-3048-f5f8-de72-b2f704aa1389@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg02342.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 01:08:56PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/09/16 12:59, NightStrike wrote: > > Could we at least reach out and see if there's someone else who could > > be the maintainer? I noticed gcj patches recently, so there's still > > interest. > > 1. It's too late. We have been discussing this for a long time, and > we're now doing what we decided. > > 2. Maintaining GCJ requires a lot of knowledge of both Java and GCC > internals. There are very few people in the world with that > knowledge, and I'm fairly sure I know them by name. > > 3. The Classpath library is very old and is unmaintained. The only > practical way to update GCJ would be to use the OpenJDK class > libraries instead, but updating GCJ to use those class libraries is a > very substantial job. > > So, I cannot prevent anyone from coming along to maintain GCJ, and > neither would I want to. However, such a proposal would have to be > credible. It is a multi-engineer-year commitment, and not just any > ordinary engineers. Can we move forward with this patch, then? Marek