Re: Is gcj dead?
Joel Dice <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.java.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> 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