From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122798 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 17:35:02 -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 122773 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2015 17:35:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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 17:35:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2883CA965; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-201.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.201]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7KHYuwl007838; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:34:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH, libjava/classpath]: Fix overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc' build warning To: Andrew Hughes References: <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> <55D5F1C8.7060003@redhat.com> <55D5F681.5060809@redhat.com> <1092027746.13351972.1440086614051.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Cc: Andrew Haley , Matthias Klose , Tom Tromey , Uros Bizjak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <55D60FBF.4090302@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:35:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1092027746.13351972.1440086614051.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On 08/20/2015 10:03 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 08/20/2015 09:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> 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. >> Right. So the question is there some reason why OpenJDK can't be used >> to bootstrap itself? Ie, is there a fundamental reason why Andrew needs >> to drop back down to GCJ and start the bootstrapping process from scratch. >> >> ISTM that ideally the previous version of OpenJDK would be used to >> bootstrap the new version of OpenJDK. >> >> Which leaves the question of how to deal with new platforms, but it >> sounds like there's a cross-compilation process starting with OpenJDK 8 >> which ought to solve that problem. >> > > The issue is that we're still supporting a version of OpenJDK/IcedTea where > there is no previous version (6). Once that goes, gcj could go too. This > is still just a little too soon. But surely OpenJDK6 can build OpenJDK6, right? I don't see you're fundamentally getting anything from always starting with a GCJ bootstrap. > > That's where it comes unstuck. How do you get a JDK built when there are > no JDK binaries for your architecture? Cross compilation, just like folks do for Ada. >> > > I'm not against this long-term, just not immediately. Deprecating it now > and removing it in the next release cycle (7?) would probably be enough, > but we need a little more time to wind down dependencies. I don't see us > needing it in a GCC released in 2017. I was of the opinion that we should remove it from the default languages to be built. Others wanted to be more aggressive :-) jeff