Re: Is gcj dead?

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 <[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
>
> 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.

> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it would have
> gone straight in.

I submitted it to [email protected] (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.