From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61169 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 14:57:59 -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 61148 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx6-phx2.redhat.com Received: from mx6-phx2.redhat.com (HELO mx6-phx2.redhat.com) (209.132.183.39) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:57:57 +0000 Received: from zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.19]) by mx6-phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7KEvuFX029219; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:57:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:57:00 -0000 From: Andrew Hughes To: Andrew Haley Cc: Matthias Klose , Tom Tromey , Jeff Law , Uros Bizjak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <401143105.13318272.1440082676204.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55D5909B.3080207@redhat.com> References: <55CA44C8.7000209@redhat.com> <87mvxxdxys.fsf@tromey.com> <141970419.12686720.1440038099721.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87y4h68tk3.fsf@tromey.com> <55D58ED0.1020402@ubuntu.com> <55D5909B.3080207@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- > On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of > >> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea. > >> > >> Andrew Haley said the opposite here: > >> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html > > > > if you need bootstrapping OpenJDK 6 or OpenJDK 7, then having gcj > > available for the target platform is required. Starting with OpenJDK > > 8 you should be able to cross build OpenJDK 8 with an OpenJDK 8 > > available on the cross platform. It might be possible to cross > > build older OpenJDK versions, but this usually is painful. > > Sure, but we don't need GCJ going forward. I don't think that there > are any new platforms to which OpenJDK has not been ported which will > require GCJ to bootstrap. And even if there are, anybody who needs to > do that can (and, indeed, should) use an earlier version of GCJ. It's > not going to go away; it will always be in the GCC repos. And because > newer versions of GCC may break GCJ (and maybe OpenJDK) it makes more > sense to use an old GCC/GCJ for the bootstrapping of an old OpenJDK. > I don't see how we don't at present. How else do you solve the chicken-and-egg situation of needing a JDK to build a JDK? I don't see crossing your fingers and hoping there's a binary around somewhere as a very sustainable system. >From a personal point of view, I need gcj to make sure each new IcedTea 1.x and 2.x release bootstraps. I don't plan to hold my system GCC at GCC 5 for the next decade or however long we plan to support IcedTea 2.x / OpenJDK 7. It's also still noticeably faster building with a native ecj than OpenJDK's javac. It would cause me and others a lot of pain to remove gcj at this point. What exactly is the reason to do so, other than some sudden whim? > Andrew. > -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 PGP Key: rsa4096/248BDC07 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07