From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11726 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2012 21:57:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 11716 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2012 21:57:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-pb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.160.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:57:15 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ro12so665831pbb.20 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.253.230 with SMTP id ad6mr843201pbd.84.1352239035418; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from dl.caveonetworks.com (64.2.3.195.ptr.us.xo.net. [64.2.3.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i10sm10700390paz.17.2012.11.06.13.57.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:57:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <509987B5.2050904@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:57:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Klose CC: GCJ-patches Subject: Re: classpath merge for gcc-4.8? References: <50997550.4060904@ubuntu.com> In-Reply-To: <50997550.4060904@ubuntu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-q4/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 On 11/06/2012 12:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > classpath wasn't merged for the gcc-4.7 release, is anybody working on a > merge for gcc-4.8? stage1 is finished now, however I think this should > still be possible to do for 4.8. > > as a related topic, should an update of boehm-gc be addressed too? > I am not a maintainer, but I would say yes to both questions. Really the importance of GCJ/libgcj relative to GCC is lower than it used to be, so I doubt that doing this in a non-stage1 stage really matters that much. David Daney