From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <java-return-26397-listarch-java=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4373 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2009 13:07:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 4364 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2009 13:07:24 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f226.google.com) (209.85.219.226)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:07:20 +0000
Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so4061035ewy.29         for <java@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.93.2 with SMTP id k2mr1720832wef.210.1255957637167; Mon,  	19 Oct 2009 06:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4ADC6302.9010809@redhat.com>
References: <4AD846B0.2080102@rawbw.com> <4ADAE903.2010009@redhat.com>  	<bf0c3b3f0910190542v19c99f45yb2d5f97127de31f3@mail.gmail.com>  	<4ADC6302.9010809@redhat.com>
From: Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:07:00 -0000
Message-ID: <bf0c3b3f0910190606q26681634i13fd2d2273149aa3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is gcj dead?
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Cc: yuri@rawbw.com, 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: <java.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Id: <java.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:java-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/>
List-Post: <mailto:java@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:java-help@gcc.gnu.org>, <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Yuri wrote:
>>>> Last news in http://gcc.gnu.org/java/ are dated March 2007.
>>> Yes, we should update that. =A0There hasn't been a lot of =A0new gcj de=
velopment,
>>> 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=3D40816
>
> 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. On those the JAVA implementation is
GCJ. Hopefully by then OpenJDK-6 will compile on HPPA ...

Can you set bug as won't fix or something like that ?

--=20
Mathieu