GCC SC request about ecj

GCC SC request about ecj

[Tom Tromey]

Andrew Haley and I had a long talk about gcj and the eclipse java
compiler (we call it "ecj" for short) while we were at FOSDEM last
week.  We concluded that we didn't foresee any serious technical
problems with using ecj as the java language front end to gcj, and
that we would like to move forward with this approach.

Naturally we would do the work on a branch and it would be subjected
to the normal review processes, etc, before any merge to the trunk.

However, we wanted to get a ruling on our plan from the steering
committee before proceeding.  It would be inefficient to put a lot of
work into this if it were later found to be politically or legally
impossible.

In particular we would like to import a copy of the ecj sources into
the GCC source tree, so that we can continue to deliver a complete
compiler system in a single download.

So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
it is acceptable?  It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
long the discussion might take.

Tom

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Ranjit Mathew]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 
> In particular we would like to import a copy of the ecj sources into
> the GCC source tree, so that we can continue to deliver a complete
> compiler system in a single download.
> 
> So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
> it is acceptable?  It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
> long the discussion might take.

Did the SC get to deliberate on this issue? Was this
message:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html

on inclusion of source code from other projects in GCC a
direct result of these discussions or a mere coincidence?

Thanks,
Ranjit.

- --
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.    Web: http://rmathew.com/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMhb/Yb1hx2wRS48RAuUIAJ9OoRzBhdt80k0uKP5eQELOZslQRACeJKfU
yeVIfT7VJ00VFVmHgbrSz0U=
=5n9c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Ranjit Mathew writes:

Ranjit> Did the SC get to deliberate on this issue? Was this
Ranjit> message:

Ranjit> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html

Ranjit> on inclusion of source code from other projects in GCC a
Ranjit> direct result of these discussions or a mere coincidence?

	Yes, the GCC SC has discussed it.  The discussion was sidetracked
by a number of issues, including the one referenced.  We are waiting for
RMS to comment.

David

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

Tom> So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
Tom> it is acceptable?  It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
Tom> long the discussion might take.

Ping.  Any progress to report?

Since I still think this is the best way forward, I started work on
it.  I've got a prototype working here.

I'd like to commit it to a branch on gcc.gnu.org.  But, I don't want
to offend the SC any more than I have to ;-).  So, please also let me
know if this is unacceptable and if so, why.  I suppose in the absence
of a response I'll just consider it a maintainer's prerogative and go
ahead.

Tom

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:28:50PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Tom> So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
> Tom> it is acceptable?  It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
> Tom> long the discussion might take.
> 
> Ping.  Any progress to report?

I answered Tom privately; the short answer is that this is really an
RMS decision, not an SC decision, since it involves legal issues,
copyright ownership, etc.

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

Tom> Since I still think this is the best way forward, I started work on
Tom> it.  I've got a prototype working here.

Tom> I'd like to commit it to a branch on gcc.gnu.org.  But, I don't want
Tom> to offend the SC any more than I have to ;-).  So, please also let me
Tom> know if this is unacceptable and if so, why.  I suppose in the absence
Tom> of a response I'll just consider it a maintainer's prerogative and go
Tom> ahead.

Just to clarify a bit --

My current changes don't involve ecj to the tree.  They are mostly
modifications to java/lang-specs.h and a few other related things.
IMO there's nothing legally questionable about this really, it is
analogous to a patch that adds support for a system 'ld' or the like.

Tom

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Per Bothner]

Richard stallman write last night:

      I agree to the use of the Eclipse front end to generate
      Java byte codes.

Note this does not mean importing Eclispe code into the gcc source or
release tree.  We need to decide on a practical way to have people
grab a compatible version of ecj.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Joe Buck]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:59:58AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Richard stallman write last night:
> 
>      I agree to the use of the Eclipse front end to generate
>      Java byte codes.
> 
> Note this does not mean importing Eclispe code into the gcc source or
> release tree.  We need to decide on a practical way to have people
> grab a compatible version of ecj.

Treat it like GMP, I guess; it's an external dependency.  Tell people
where to get it; have configure test for its presence and refuse to build
any dependencies if it isn't found.

Re: GCC SC request about ecj

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

Per> Note this does not mean importing Eclispe code into the gcc source or
Per> release tree.  We need to decide on a practical way to have people
Per> grab a compatible version of ecj.

My short-term plan is to make a branch in gcc svn, and commit what
I've got.  I'll also post my current ecj patch somewhere, along with
instructions on how to set it up.  (It is easy.)

Longer term, I think the Eclipse JDT guys have been talking about
doing separate ecj jar releases.  So, ideally we would have the needed
gcj-related patches upstream and people could simply download these
jars or check out sources from eclipse cvs.

I haven't sent my ecj patch upstream yet since I wanted to iron out
most of the issues before proposing it.

libgcj builds with the new compiler, but there is still some runtime
bug.  I suspect there's a compiler bug somewhere; I haven't
investigated yet.  I have successfully built a libgcj based on the
classpath generics branch though -- pretty fun.  This required a
number of changes in libgcj.

I suppose we could import classpath generics branch and merge it to
the new branch I make, and proceed from there.

Tom