From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13294 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2014 16:00:25 -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 13272 invoked by uid 89); 17 Aug 2014 16:00:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 Aug 2014 16:00:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7HG0KX3017807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:00:20 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-28.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.28]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7HG0IRL029543; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:00:19 -0400 Message-ID: <53F0D191.9010400@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:00:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruben De Smet , java@gcc.gnu.org, Brian Jones Subject: Re: Java > 1.5 References: <53EE496B.9020709@telenet.be> <53EF12B3.7000600@redhat.com> <53EF27DB.8000602@telenet.be> <53EFE23A.4000008@redhat.com> <53F06DFC.3030108@telenet.be> In-Reply-To: <53F06DFC.3030108@telenet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On 17/08/14 09:55, Ruben De Smet wrote: > 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? No, you'd have to rewrite the part of the core class library that communicates with the VM. I don't think it would be practical. >>> 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. How much do you know about GCC internals? >> 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). You always have to have a JRE. Maybe it's in a shared library, like libgcj. I guess I don't know why you want to do this. > 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. Let's get real. I could do move GCJ to use the OpenJDK libraries in maybe six months to a year. I am better qualified than almost anyone else to do it. I'm not sure there is anything much someone can do in two months, unless it's simply adding a few classes or bringing some classes up to date. > 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? GCJ hasn't been worked on for some time. Will anyone work on it again? I don't know. It's very out of date. Andrew.