From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85754 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2016 17:45:42 -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 85113 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2016 17:45:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*x:ZimbraWebClient, H*UA:ZimbraWebClient, H*Ad:U*roger, javapatches X-HELO: mx3-phx2.redhat.com Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com (HELO mx3-phx2.redhat.com) (209.132.183.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:45:40 +0000 Received: from zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.19]) by mx3-phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1NHjdpV014774; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:45:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Hughes To: Andrew Haley Cc: Roger Sayle , java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <991292478.26327859.1456249539216.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <56CC2CB2.8020301@redhat.com> References: <74FFBDDA-D906-470D-A7BA-559AAD71E76A@nextmovesoftware.com> <56CC2CB2.8020301@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [JAVA PATCH] Enable more array bounds check elimination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-q1/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- > On 22/02/16 23:02, Roger Sayle wrote: > > Please point me towards any relevant postings (of yours) on the subject of > > gcj bounds check elimination, as I'd love to catch up on current thinking. > > I'm not sure that there are any, really. The discussions I can > remember were all done in person, and I didn't get positive > feedback about the idea of adding to the type system in GCC's > middle end. > > Incidentally, we have been talking about EOL for GCJ for some years > now. GCC 6 will very likely be the last GCJ. Yes, I believe we agreed to regard it as deprecated in 6 and remove it during the lifetime of 7 [0]. As such, this patch probably needs to go to the 6 branch too if it's ever going to see the light of day. > > Andrew. > > [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2015-q3/msg00041.html -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222