* Re: Is gcj dead? [not found] <4AD846B0.2080102@rawbw.com> @ 2009-10-18 10:08 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-18 22:42 ` Yuri 2009-10-19 12:42 ` Mathieu Malaterre 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-18 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yuri; +Cc: java Yuri wrote: > Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, but it is maintained. > Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. Which ones? Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-18 10:08 ` Is gcj dead? Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-18 22:42 ` Yuri 2009-10-19 12:00 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 12:42 ` Mathieu Malaterre 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Yuri @ 2009-10-18 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: java Andrew Haley wrote: > Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, > but it is maintained. > > >> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >> > > Which ones? > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41356 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41361 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41372 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41375 And today I added one more: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41745 Yuri ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-18 22:42 ` Yuri @ 2009-10-19 12:00 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yuri; +Cc: java Yuri wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >> development, >> but it is maintained. >> >> >>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>> >> >> Which ones? >> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41356 > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41361 Can't reproduce this. This is presumably a bug in the FreeBSD port of gcj. I'm not sure who maintains gcj on FreeBSD. > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41372 > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41375 > And today I added one more: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41745 All of these seem to be FreeBSD specific. I think that the FreeBSD port must be broken. The best plan is to build gcj from source and run the libgcj test suite. Then we'll know how brain-damaged the FreeBSD port really is. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-18 10:08 ` Is gcj dead? Andrew Haley 2009-10-18 22:42 ` Yuri @ 2009-10-19 12:42 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 13:01 ` Andrew Haley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: yuri, java On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: > Yuri wrote: >> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. > > Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, > but it is maintained. > >> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. > > Which ones? How about this one: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 Thanks -- Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 12:42 ` Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 13:01 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 13:07 ` Mathieu Malaterre 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Malaterre; +Cc: yuri, java Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >> Yuri wrote: >>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >> but it is maintained. >> >>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >> Which ones? > > How about this one: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 13:01 ` Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 13:07 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 13:10 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: yuri, java On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: > Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Yuri wrote: >>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>> but it is maintained. >>> >>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>> Which ones? >> >> How about this one: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 > > I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. Point taken. In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK on debian on arch such as HPPA. On those the JAVA implementation is GCJ. Hopefully by then OpenJDK-6 will compile on HPPA ... Can you set bug as won't fix or something like that ? -- Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 13:07 ` Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 13:10 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 13:25 ` Mathieu Malaterre 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Malaterre; +Cc: yuri, java Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>>> but it is maintained. >>>> >>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>>> Which ones? >>> How about this one: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. > > Point taken. > In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK > on debian on arch such as HPPA. Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? > On those the JAVA implementation is > GCJ. Hopefully by then OpenJDK-6 will compile on HPPA ... > Can you set bug as won't fix or something like that ? I should, I suppose. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 13:10 ` Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 13:25 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 16:03 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: yuri, java On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: > Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>> >>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>>>> Which ones? >>>> How about this one: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >> >> Point taken. >> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >> on debian on arch such as HPPA. > > Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? Compilation error can be found here: http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html And source: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. Thanks, -- Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 13:25 ` Mathieu Malaterre @ 2009-10-19 16:03 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 20:00 ` Joel Dice 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: java Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>>>>> Which ones? >>>>> How about this one: >>>>> >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>> Point taken. >>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? > > Compilation error can be found here: > > http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html > > And source: > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate > > I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of > the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. Yes, I see what's going on. To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the change now. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 16:03 ` Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-19 20:00 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 9:27 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Dice @ 2009-10-19 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: Tom Tromey, java On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>> Point taken. >>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >> >> Compilation error can be found here: >> >> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >> >> And source: >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >> >> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. > > Yes, I see what's going on. > > To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes > a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the change > now. On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime time: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-19 20:00 ` Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 9:27 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-20 14:07 ` Joel Dice 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-20 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Dice; +Cc: java Joel Dice wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response >>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>>> Point taken. >>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >>> >>> Compilation error can be found here: >>> >>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >>> >>> And source: >>> >>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >>> >>> >>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. >> >> Yes, I see what's going on. >> >> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes >> a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the >> change >> now. > > On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime > time: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 I don't understand the comment "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second (since I'm not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." What second case is that? BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it would have gone straight in. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-20 9:27 ` Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-20 14:07 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 14:17 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: java On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > Joel Dice wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response >>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>>>> Point taken. >>>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >>>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>>>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >>>> >>>> Compilation error can be found here: >>>> >>>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >>>> >>>> And source: >>>> >>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >>>> >>>> >>>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >>>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. >>> >>> Yes, I see what's going on. >>> >>> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes >>> a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the >>> change >>> now. >> >> On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime >> time: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 > > I don't understand the comment > > "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second (since I'm > not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." > > What second case is that? Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed. > BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it would have > gone straight in. I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two years ago: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-20 14:07 ` Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 14:17 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-20 14:45 ` Joel Dice 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-20 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Dice; +Cc: java Joel Dice wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Joel Dice wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> >>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response >>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>>>>> Point taken. >>>>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as >>>>>>> VTK >>>>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>>>>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >>>>> >>>>> Compilation error can be found here: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >>>>> >>>>> And source: >>>>> >>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >>>>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. >>>> >>>> Yes, I see what's going on. >>>> >>>> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes >>>> a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the >>>> change >>>> now. >>> >>> On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime >>> time: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 >> >> I don't understand the comment >> >> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second >> (since I'm >> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." >> >> What second case is that? > > Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol > in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it > includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the > underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed. OK. >> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it >> would have >> gone straight in. > > I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two > years ago: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html > > I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches. Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot. It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived. Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though. I'll have a look now. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-20 14:17 ` Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-20 14:45 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 15:04 ` Joel Dice 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: java On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > Joel Dice wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> Joel Dice wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >>>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response >>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>>>>>> Point taken. >>>>>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as >>>>>>>> VTK >>>>>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>>>>>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >>>>>> >>>>>> Compilation error can be found here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >>>>>> >>>>>> And source: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >>>>>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I see what's going on. >>>>> >>>>> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes >>>>> a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the >>>>> change >>>>> now. >>>> >>>> On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime >>>> time: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 >>> >>> I don't understand the comment >>> >>> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second >>> (since I'm >>> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." >>> >>> What second case is that? >> >> Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol >> in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it >> includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the >> underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed. > > OK. > >>> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it >>> would have >>> gone straight in. >> >> I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two >> years ago: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html >> >> I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches. > > Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot. No problem - I forgot about it, too, until now :) > It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived. > Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though. Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape character or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?). > I'll have a look now. > > Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-20 14:45 ` Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 15:04 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 15:08 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: java On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Joel Dice wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> >>>> Joel Dice wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj >>>>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response >>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>>>>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>>>>>>> Point taken. >>>>>>>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as >>>>>>>>> VTK >>>>>>>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>>>>>>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Compilation error can be found here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And source: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >>>>>>> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I see what's going on. >>>>>> >>>>>> To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes >>>>>> a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the >>>>>> change >>>>>> now. >>>>> >>>>> On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime >>>>> time: >>>>> >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474 >>>> >>>> I don't understand the comment >>>> >>>> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second >>>> (since I'm >>>> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." >>>> >>>> What second case is that? >>> >>> Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol >>> in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it >>> includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the >>> underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed. >> >> OK. >> >>>> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it >>>> would have >>>> gone straight in. >>> >>> I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two >>> years ago: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html >>> >>> I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches. >> >> Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot. > > No problem - I forgot about it, too, until now :) > >> It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived. >> Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though. > > Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape character > or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?). Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated code and legacy compatibility). >> I'll have a look now. >> >> Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Is gcj dead? 2009-10-20 15:04 ` Joel Dice @ 2009-10-20 15:08 ` Andrew Haley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-10-20 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Dice; +Cc: java Joel Dice wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived. >>> Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though. >> >> Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape >> character or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?). > > Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in > identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated > code and legacy compatibility). I am not at all sure this *can* be fixed in any sensible way. The best we could probably do is fix gjavah to emit static void xy__U_ser(); instead of static void xy__User(); This is slightly unpleasant, but at least it's tolerable. I'm not really sure that it's worth doing, though. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-20 15:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <4AD846B0.2080102@rawbw.com> 2009-10-18 10:08 ` Is gcj dead? Andrew Haley 2009-10-18 22:42 ` Yuri 2009-10-19 12:00 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 12:42 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 13:01 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 13:07 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 13:10 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 13:25 ` Mathieu Malaterre 2009-10-19 16:03 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-19 20:00 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 9:27 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-20 14:07 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 14:17 ` Andrew Haley 2009-10-20 14:45 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 15:04 ` Joel Dice 2009-10-20 15:08 ` Andrew Haley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).