From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE13D3858D20 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:18:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CE13D3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id e13so23783049edj.7 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 04:18:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aiuambtdc4SvPDs7SLWhKskqNQRGvWtswN+P/Hto4To=; b=n0eKRXWLSaXg7jYiIiOU98+wC3vQW/3m382UM6xTcTg73IVoArUd4kocsODfckUdgY +NTVF+5NuYg0QW1GYIofsJC0kORkAooLEv/wnas5p0QmnNPCXVaISU3U+cqSBdKv+yaL 7LFkiaAZGCr3oNT+0KWZShlY1MndEk/Hzt5L44QhMYc+7TyDs8mtjS86GLGCl+cheMyb 9/S55AE1Pylm8uZjPGzXD49jPKt8JWMsSDcOOq/x1nEmy/Eo7YeogecL5gmokcRC4E0S WXPrjSilS9G+94io/RY9SK+KSJbBEUBOIvcYEynMpXXcJqK3ZYaISMqbhAzgmnFDI/Dc e9+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=aiuambtdc4SvPDs7SLWhKskqNQRGvWtswN+P/Hto4To=; b=0Hj+uVPZvX3j9Nhx2GiM0NgJlOSCyJ19TmQFlRonlVN+senMurK2ueVsGwFpOZ7E5x MuDUX6t9FqyZ0aPeEsL3DDg6RXVWTqEnMsbwo3qA6wHkUmNLXfXR2r/Q5sZ2rGGH9G/J k3T2OVd3xiN251AsbqpcxEVSivvIMf5/G8AOKBc0Ih+ZC2jEnoBtVCDkioCzyXYPFzF3 kzevdTCIE3IsFIPOzdAO0w4vqrk6no4gW5B4WiDKc0A5ikjoBepggOAbwFLiMZjSMj2X fzZJcwFaVGa7MLujlukiBxxhd/1EAdLhzwY48fXfizVl0MzhAuPJrlk+/R0fYVYA+Oah MOIA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkDbV4HXNNknp16BZRguz6EUHjdFBJ1n0LA52JWE6UQv6IUANf+ LA96mgiJh/ry8DOvNWtu2bcS1JDCc/j5h5v2I+k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7oEVQFvByNUysgWKy0yPDkABv+lEHGqIcmagxlXjsalTu/2tkj1YseHZfgRQLArGnvu5FEtM79WIvBvwAkt+k= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d7d4:0:b0:46b:7f11:10a4 with SMTP id e20-20020aa7d7d4000000b0046b7f1110a4mr6715621eds.59.1669810695184; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 04:18:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87be1195-fee5-7355-ddd-ddceedcce0a6@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <87be1195-fee5-7355-ddd-ddceedcce0a6@codesourcery.com> From: Zopolis0 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 23:18:06 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Java front-end and library patches. To: Joseph Myers Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > * Each patch should have its own explanation of what it is doing and why, > in the message body (not in an attachment). Just the commit summary line > and ChangeLog entries aren't enough, we need the actual substantive commit > message explaining the patch. The thing is, most of the patches do not need an explanation. Patches 1-13 are just re-adding code, 20-43 and 47 are just applying treewide changes that Java missed out on, and patches 44-56 are either incredibly simple or self-evident. If you feel like any of the listed patches require an explanation, let me know and I will provide one, but for now I dont see a reason to explain those. However, patches 14-19 do need an explanation, as proven by multiple reviews simply asking why I had made them. I'll send follow up messages to those. > Why is it now considered useful to add this front end back? The way I see it, the Java front end was removed due to a lack of maintenance and improvement. To put it simply, I am going to maintain and improve it. That is the difference between now and then. There is more nuance, but that is the gist of it. > Which version is the basis of the one being added back...? The exact same one that was removed from GCC, with the version taken being the one right before it was removed. > How has the series been validated? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. > Would you propose to maintain the front end and libraries in future? I have big plans for the library, and plan to maintain that long into the future. In regards to the actual front-end code, I will do what I can to make sure it remains at its previous level of function, but that is about it. I dislike working with the front end code, so I will fix it, but I will not make sweeping changes to it. > Would you re-open any bugs against the front end or libraries that were closed...as a result of it being removed from the tree...? Good point, I hadn't thought of that. It makes sense to re-open them, as they are by definition valid again, although I may have difficulty with the frontend ones, as that is not my strong suit. Just a brief overview of my plans for the frontend and library-- When GCJ was first introduced it was "the free Java implementation". It was trying to offer a bytecode compiler, a machine code compiler and a runtime library. Clearly, this was too much, as it borrowed another bytecode compiler and runtime library, and even then the runtime library fell into dissaray. Now, we have many pieces of the puzzle. We have a bounty of free Java bytecode compilers, and a free runtime library. The only thing missing is a free machine code compiler, which GCJ was and is. I plan to replace Classpath with the OpenJDK, and double down on the machine code aspect of GCJ, dropping bytecode and interpreted support.