From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52044 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2015 14:37:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 52028 invoked by uid 89); 21 Apr 2015 14:37:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A01B8EB24; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-37.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.37]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3LEbo7F021806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:37:51 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3LEbnTA008936; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:49 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t3LEblCg008935; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:47 +0200 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Matthias Klose Cc: GCJ-patches , "gcc-patches@gnu.org" Subject: Re: [patch] [java] bump libgcj soname Message-ID: <20150421143747.GY1725@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <55365991.4030806@ubuntu.com> <20150421141125.GW1725@tucnak.redhat.com> <55365BB2.4080603@ubuntu.com> <20150421141924.GX1725@tucnak.redhat.com> <55365EE0.8070202@ubuntu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55365EE0.8070202@ubuntu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-q2/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:29:52PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/21/2015 04:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:16:18PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> On 04/21/2015 04:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:07:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>>> bump the libgcj soname on the trunk, as done for every release cycle, > >>> > >>> Is that really needed though these days? > >>> Weren't there basically zero changes to libjava (both libjava and > >>> libjava/classpath) in the last 2 or more years? > >>> The few ones were mostly updating Copyright notices, minor configure > >>> changes, but I really haven't seen anything ABI changing for quite a while. > >> > >> yes, the GCC version is embedded in the GCJ_VERSIONED_LIBDIR > >> > >> which is defined as > >> > >> gcjsubdir=gcj-$gcjversion-$libgcj_soversion > >> dbexecdir='$(toolexeclibdir)/'$gcjsubdir > > > > But why is that an argument for bumping it? If both GCC 5 and GCC 6 will > > (likely) provide the same ABI in the library, there is no reason not to use > > the same directory for those. > > but currently there are different directories used (gcjversion already changed > on the trunk) and compiled into the library. Do you mean that gcjsubdir should > be just defined as gcj? What depends on BASE-VER sure, that is bumped automatically and should track the gcc version. But the soname, which is an unrelated number, there is no point to bump it. If you have a packaging issue, just solve it on the packaging side, but really there is no point to yearly bump a soname of something that doesn't change at all (and is really dead project for many years). Jakub