On 08/17/2014 12:59 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's a lot of work.  libgcj has its own interface to gcj, and we'd need
> to convert it to the interface the openJDK libraries use.

That indeed sounds like a lot of work. Isn't it easier to 'compile' the
OpenJDK Java classes for the libgcj interface, when gcj has been ported
for java 1.7, or is that impossible?

>
>> I guess you'll have to implement all the new 1.6 and 1.7 Java features
>> to get the OpenJDK libraries to work?
> Yes, but that's less of an issue.

So, if implementing those new features could be done, I guess I've to
start looking at the contribution guidelines.

> 
> Sure.  But I don't quite understand what you want me to tell you.  You'd
> need to understand the problem and figure out how to fix it.

I'd like to be able to deploy my application to my users without having
to distribute a JRE with it (that is, for windows users).
Are there any resources where I can start reading on what interfaces are
to be converted to the OpenJDK interface? I could take some time in
October or November trying to convert this.

Another topic: Brian Jones asked if gcj was dying:
> Is gcj going to be archived and removed from gcc?  No one works on it
> right?

In the git history I can't see a lot of history. Is gcj dying indeed?

Thank you for your valuable time!

Ruben