From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4620 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2009 15:04:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 4272 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2009 15:04:34 -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; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:04:30 +0000 X-Message-ID: a8c634fbca737eada3c7ea240b6f9ae1e33dc67e6dcbc43f Received: from jdpc-core1.ecovate.com (unknown [204.133.153.190]) by mail.mailsnare.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA0433385; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Dice To: Andrew Haley cc: java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Is gcj dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4AD846B0.2080102@rawbw.com> <4ADAE903.2010009@redhat.com> <4ADC6302.9010809@redhat.com> <4ADC6531.5000504@redhat.com> <4ADC8DC5.3000204@redhat.com> <4ADD8263.1070105@redhat.com> <4ADDC667.2050401@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/msg00063.txt.bz2 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Joel Dice wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> >>>> Joel Dice wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> I don't understand the comment >>>> >>>> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second >>>> (since I'm >>>> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)." >>>> >>>> What second case is that? >>> >>> Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol >>> in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it >>> includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the >>> underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed. >> >> OK. >> >>>> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it >>>> would have >>>> gone straight in. >>> >>> I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two >>> years ago: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html >>> >>> I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches. >> >> Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot. > > No problem - I forgot about it, too, until now :) > >> It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived. >> Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though. > > Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape character > or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?). Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated code and legacy compatibility). >> I'll have a look now. >> >> Andrew.