From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41157 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2016 19:05:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 41146 invoked by uid 89); 4 Oct 2016 19:05:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=efforts, Hx-languages-length:1071, HReply-to:D*org, H*r:sk:cable.0 X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:05:25 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brV1j-0007zc-B7 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:05:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52258) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brV1j-0007yV-7t; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:05:19 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4022 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1brV1f-00087p-6g; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:05:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: <8360p8lyui.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: qiyaoltc@gmail.com, tom@tromey.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Pedro Alves on Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:30:58 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFA 0/3] Fix various bugs found by static analysis Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1475531646-18049-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 > Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:30:58 +0100 > > On 10/04/2016 04:14 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> > >> * PR 20654, incorrect code in java_value_print. Now that gcj has been > >> removed, I think it's probably better to simply remove the Java > >> language support. If this sounds ok, let me know, and I can provide > >> a patch. > >> > > > > I am fine to remove java language support in GDB, but I'd like to hear > > what other people think about this. > > > > I'm fine with removing gcj support, but then again I never really > needed it personally. Shouldn't we wait for some time? I mean, gcj may have been removed, but that doesn't mean all of its installations have been deleted, or that no one out there uses the last release, and will use them for some time. How about just not making any significant maintenance efforts for it from now on?