From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4299 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2009 17:17:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 4288 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2009 17:17:15 -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 17:17:05 +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 13:15:55 -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 10:15:46 -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 10:15:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4A3A7642.9070009@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:17:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NightStrike CC: Andrew Haley , 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: 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/msg00443.txt.bz2 NightStrike wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM, 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. > > That's what David just described -- that there are both GCC local > changes and upstream changes. > > Regardless, someone with the knowledge and background needs to do this merge. > Or someone willing to acquire such knowledge and background by attempting to do the merge and presenting the results of their efforts for review. David Daney