From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98650 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2016 11:34:50 -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 98628 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2016 11:34:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*F:U*aph, hurry, life, news 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; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:34:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9774685538; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink ([10.3.113.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3HBYZYx021521; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:34:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [wwwdocs,Java] java/index.html -- fix formatting on gcc.gnu.org To: Gerald Pfeifer , Andrew Hughes References: <1384476119.20974246.1460325515495.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Andrew Haley Message-ID: <571374CB.8080604@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:34:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On 16/04/16 21:31, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Andrew Hughes wrote: >>> That said, looking at the page, and how since 2005 nearly all changes >>> have been maintainance ones from me, is it really worthwhile keeping >>> this (short of historic reasons)? >> I guess the next news will be the removal of GCJ during the >> GCC 7 development period, so its remaining shelf life should >> be limited anyway. > > Soo, GCC 6 has branched -- would it make sense for you guys to > start this removal? Sounds good. OTOH, I don't think there's any great hurry. > Somewhat related, any concerns if I were to remove > https://gcc.gnu.org/java/status.html now? > > ("Status of GCJ as of GCC 3.2" _really_ is rather old.) It's so old that I don't think it's of any use. However, I wonder if it might make more sense to at least have a page saying that GCJ is gone. Andrew.