From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21628 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2009 20:00:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 21544 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2009 20:00:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG45,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from g78.mailsnare.net (HELO mail.mailsnare.net) (209.236.228.78) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:59:59 +0000 X-Message-ID: a8c634fbca737eada3c7ea240b6f9ae1e33dc67e6dcbc43f Received: from jdpc-core1.ecovate.com (unknown [204.133.153.190]) by mail.mailsnare.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F62233622; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:00:00 -0000 From: Joel Dice To: Andrew Haley cc: Tom Tromey , java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Is gcj dead? In-Reply-To: <4ADC8DC5.3000204@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <4AD846B0.2080102@rawbw.com> <4ADAE903.2010009@redhat.com> <4ADC6302.9010809@redhat.com> <4ADC6531.5000504@redhat.com> <4ADC8DC5.3000204@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>>>> Yuri wrote: >>>>>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007. >>>>>>> Yes, we should update that. There hasn't been a lot of new gcj development, >>>>>>> but it is maintained. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also I submitted few PRs a month ago and there is no response at all. >>>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816 >>>>> I am still rather nervous about that one, as it's an ABI change. >>>> Point taken. >>>> In the long term this will prevent compilation of package such as VTK >>>> on debian on arch such as HPPA. >>> Really? That's all rather amazing. Is there no simple workaround? >> >> Compilation error can be found here: >> >> http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtk-developers/2009-June/006110.html >> >> And source: >> >> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/Graphics/vtkJVMManager.h?view=annotate >> >> I really do not see how I can work around that. Simply removing one of >> the multiple signature is not a solution IMHO. > > Yes, I see what's going on. > > To Tom Tromey: This is an ABI change, but AFAICS the only time it makes > a difference is where it's already broken. I'm tempted to make the change > now. On the subject of ABI bugs, perhaps this patch is also ready for prime time: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28474