From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39761 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 15:27:09 -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 39744 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2015 15:27:09 -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_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: 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; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:27:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D08341AD6; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:27:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-173.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.173]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7KFR4IN006860; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:27:05 -0400 Message-ID: <55D5F1C8.7060003@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Hughes CC: Matthias Klose , Tom Tromey , Jeff Law , Uros Bizjak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning 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> <401143105.13318272.1440082676204.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <401143105.13318272.1440082676204.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > ----- 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. That's what we do with GCC, binutils, etc: we bootstrap. > From a personal point of view, I need gcj to make sure each new > IcedTea 1.x and 2.x release bootstraps. Sure, but all that does is test that the GCJ bootstrap still works. And it's probably the only serious use of GCJ left. > 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? It's not a sudden whim: it's something we've been discussing for years. The only reason GCJ is still alive is that I committed to keep it going while we still needed it boot bootstrap OpenJDK. Maintaining GCJ in GCC is a significant cost, and GCJ has reached the end of its natural life. Classpath is substantially unmaintained, and GCJ doesn't support any recent versions of Java. Andrew.