From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19136 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2009 04:04:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 19004 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2009 04:04:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:04:35 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 3so71613eyh.14 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.144.8 with SMTP id r8mr3628842ebd.12.1240891473031; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm5132660eye.6.2009.04.27.21.04.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49F682E4.4010604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:04:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Dave Korn , java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix PR38892: "--enable-libgcj-debug" breaks bootstrap. References: <49EF6F29.2000601@gmail.com> <49EFA476.5080305@gmail.com> <49EFD607.6020007@gmail.com> <49F3B4B0.6010400@gmail.com> <49F5A60C.1010707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Korn writes: > > Dave> How's this version? I reverted classpath/, but I left > Dave> gnu/classpath/natConfiguration.cc alone (it includes cni.h). > > Just for future reference, stuff under libjava/classpath is imported > from the Classpath project. Stuff outside of that is libgcj-specific. > So I really only meant the former, but I see now that this wasn't > clear :) Nono.. it was pretty clear, I was just repeating back what I understood you to mean, as confirmation. > Dave> Ok now? > > Yes, thank you. Thanks, committed. cheers, DaveK