From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4256 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2012 10:58:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 4247 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2012 10:58:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:57:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7Avqso026864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Nov 2012 05:57:52 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-82.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.82]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7Avo32020614; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 05:57:50 -0500 Message-ID: <509A3EAD.6060906@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Daney CC: Matthias Klose , GCJ-patches Subject: Re: classpath merge for gcc-4.8? References: <50997550.4060904@ubuntu.com> <509987B5.2050904@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <509987B5.2050904@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 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/msg00027.txt.bz2 On 11/06/12 21:57, David Daney wrote: > 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. Perhaps not, but now is an excellent time to do it. Andrew.