From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30521 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2009 17:08:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 30512 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2009 17:08:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com (HELO mail3.caviumnetworks.com) (12.108.191.235) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:08:34 +0000 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,2,2,3503) id ; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:07:31 -0400 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:07:21 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([64.169.86.201]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:07:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4A3A7449.8060207@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:08:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley CC: NightStrike , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, hans.boehm@hp.com Subject: Re: GCC and boehm-gc References: <4A3A6AD8.70207@caviumnetworks.com> <4A3A724E.4000808@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A3A724E.4000808@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 Andrew Haley wrote: > NightStrike wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Daney wrote: >>> NightStrike wrote: >>>> Given the recent issues with libffi being so drastically out of synch >>>> with upstream, I was curious about boehm-gc and how that is handled. >>>> In getting gcj to work on Win64, the next step is boehm-gc now that >>>> libffi works just fine. However, the garbage collector is in terrible >>>> shape and will need a bit of work. Do we send those fixes here to >>>> GCC, or to some other project? Who handles it? How is the synching >>>> done compared to other external projects? >>>> >>> Your analysis of the situation is essentially correct. >>> >>> Hans (now CCed) is good about merging changes to the upstream sources, >>> but we haven't updated GCC/libgcj's copy in quite some time. A >>> properly motivated person would have to import a newer version of the >>> GC checking that all GCC local changes were either already merged, or >>> if not port them to the new GC (those that are not upstream should >>> then be evaluated to see if they should be). >> So it seems that boehm-gc is in the exact state as libffi. > > No, it's not. The problem with libffi is that it was updated in gcc and > upstream; that is much less of a problem with boehm-gc. > It may be less of a problem, but running svn log boehm-gc shows several non-configure changes since Bryce imported version 6.6 in r110222. David Daney