From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24096 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2014 09:00:02 -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 24019 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2014 08:59:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 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; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:59:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s818xtY7012478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 04:59:56 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-62.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.62]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s818xotW000714; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 04:59:52 -0400 Message-ID: <54043586.6070201@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:00:00 -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: Erik Larsson , "java@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Missing java.lang.String constructor in libjava References: <5403FFAE.6010407@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5403FFAE.6010407@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On 01/09/14 06:10, Erik Larsson wrote: > I was trying to compile some Java 1.5 code into a binary and ran into a > problem. The constructor String(int[], int, int) does not exist in gcj's > libjava, even though it was added to GNU classpath as early as 2006 [1]. > Is this omission intentional? Surely there must have been a code sync > between gcc and GNU classpath since 2006? I would have thought so. Why don't you have a look? Andrew.