From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5647 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 13:50:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 5493 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 13:50:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.188) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 May 2009 13:50:09 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so373833fks.8 for ; Thu, 07 May 2009 06:50:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.189.15 with SMTP id r15mr1608227mup.126.1241704206336; Thu, 07 May 2009 06:50:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A02E572.7080003@redhat.com> References: <4A020407.2090306@gmail.com> <4A02A70C.3030101@redhat.com> <7230133d0905070445r2c467880o157fbb40ecfe40fa@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0905070625g64b58751uac2affbc3caf4741@mail.gmail.com> <4A02E572.7080003@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 13:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <7230133d0905070650g76564129m7824df694091dace@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath From: Bryce McKinlay To: Andrew Haley Cc: Andrew John Hughes , Sal , java@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > >> There's actually no need to do a wholesale replacement of >> everything. =A0GCJ already overrides quite a number of classes from >> GNU Classpath with its own versions (including Object IIRC). I agree. GCJ-OpenJDK could be built following a very similar approach. >> Quite a number of packages in Classpath are just pure Java and are >> used as is in GCJ. =A0This even extends to Swing, where the native JNI >> code from Classpath is used (GCJ usually prefers CNI). >> >> It really depends what you want the end result to be. =A0Having some >> hybrid with all the packages is probably an easier goal than trying >> to pass the TCK with the result... ;) > > Huh? =A0I was assuming Java compatibility was the goal. Sure, it won't be perfect. But this approach gets you ~90% of the compatibility with ~10% of the effort! Bryce