From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71117 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2016 12:09:01 -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 71101 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2016 12:09:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:3048, engineers, interest, late 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; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:08:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (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 0B09F83F47 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-116-75.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.75]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8BC8uCb003737; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 08:08:57 -0400 From: Andrew Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <78f841e7-808b-58d0-7913-3ec0d19630a0@redhat.com> Message-ID: <84c4f4e2-3048-f5f8-de72-b2f704aa1389@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 13:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00603.txt.bz2 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. Andrew.