From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18358 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 22:25:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18345 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 22:25:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 22:25:29 -0000 Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09513; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:25:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 23:17:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200304022225.RAA09513@caip.rutgers.edu> To: tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: Using g++ to build java? Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com References: <200304020250.VAA12000@caip.rutgers.edu> <87k7ecu8t8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > > >>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi writes: > > Kaveh> So, did we come to a conclusion about whether to use C++ in Java and > Kaveh> how to accomplish it while bootstrapping? > > Kaveh> Are there any objections to proceeding? If we're concerned about > Kaveh> diverging from 3.3 and creating merge conflicts, I believe all of > Kaveh> these changes will be so simple that we could safely put them in both > Kaveh> mainline and branch. > > FWIW, I haven't been able to find the time to work on merging the > libgcj verifier back into gcj. This certainly won't happen for 3.3. > So perhaps the divergence isn't an issue. > Tom Divergence (between mainline and 3.3 cc1plus) would be an issue if I worked on it now in preparation for your future effort. Being bored, I went ahead and fixed all of the cc1plus -pedantic warnings except for one type (which turned out to require some extra poking to fix.) I'll submit them in a little while. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu