From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27219 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2013 14:05:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27208 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2013 14:05:01 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_GC autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:05:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5PE4xZq022714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:05:00 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-106.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.106]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5PE4vlB016791; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:04:58 -0400 Message-ID: <51C9A389.6030000@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Hearn CC: GCC Java Subject: Re: Trouble building gcj 4.8.1 References: <51C87C22.9030201@redhat.com> <51C88147.8060508@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 On 06/25/2013 02:39 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Hmm, it seems there's one on my system already and it looks like the > script at the bottom of this mail. I guess it's from Debian and isn't > correct in some way. There's also an ecj1 that was installed when I > ran without --enable-java-maintainer-mode but it's in > $PREFIX/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.1/ecj1 - it seems > like running them gives the same outputs. Perhaps ecj1 was meant to be > installed as a symlink to the binary in libexec? No, you have to put it in your own path. It does say so in the instructions. Andrew.