gmane.comp.gcc.java.devel archive

2133 archived articles, newest first (page 13 of 22). Latest articles →

Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:36:09 -0700
Martin Thuresson <[email protected]> • #17281
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:13:55 -0700
Matt Rice <[email protected]> • #17280
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:55:54 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> • #17279
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:45:55 -0700
Martin Thuresson <[email protected]> • #17278
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:48:52 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17277
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:20:20 -0700
Martin Thuresson <[email protected]> • #17276
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:34:28 +0930
Alan Modra <[email protected]> • #17275
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:18:35 +0930
Alan Modra <[email protected]> • #17274
Re: [regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:23:33 +0200
Matthias Klose <[email protected]> • #17273
[regressions in GCC/libjava testsuite] Re: Patch to make bfd compile with -Wc++-compat
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:01:33 +0200
Matthias Klose <[email protected]> • #17272
Re: libjava broken on the trunk on i386-darwin8.11
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:59:12 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17271
Re: libjava broken on the trunk on i386-darwin8.11
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:21:26 -0700
Andrew Pinski <[email protected]> • #17270
libjava broken on the trunk on i386-darwin8.11
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:15:41 -0700
Andrew Pinski <[email protected]> • #17269
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:54:14 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> • #17268
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:55:56 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> • #17267
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:52:53 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> • #17266
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:44:52 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> • #17265
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:56:19 -0400
Diego Novillo <[email protected]> • #17264
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:47:51 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> • #17263
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:06:20 -0400
Diego Novillo <[email protected]> • #17262
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:00:49 +0000 (UTC)
"Joseph S. Myers" <[email protected]> • #17261
Re: [LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:36:35 +0000 (UTC)
"Joseph S. Myers" <[email protected]> • #17260
[LTO merge][0/15] Description of the final 15 patches
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:58:37 -0400
Diego Novillo <[email protected]> • #17259
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:13:20 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17258
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:47:44 +0200
Herman ten Brugge <[email protected]> • #17257
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:01:51 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17256
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:01:05 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17255
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:13:13 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17254
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:10:17 +0100
Bryce McKinlay <[email protected]> • #17253
Re: very slow jni code callbacks
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:03:32 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17252
ByteBuffer.asReadOnlyBuffer() and direct byte buffers
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:33:51 +0200
Erik Larsson <[email protected]> • #17251
very slow jni code callbacks
Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:23:31 +0200
Herman ten Brugge <[email protected]> • #17250
Re: About static linking with gcj
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:38:05 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17249
Re: About static linking with gcj
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:57:29 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17248
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:32:27 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17247
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:35:43 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17246
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:29:35 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17245
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:21:44 -0400
Craig Vanderborgh <[email protected]> • #17244
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:06:44 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17243
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:58:23 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17242
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:48:47 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17241
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:47:55 -0400
Craig Vanderborgh <[email protected]> • #17240
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:17:13 +0100
Bryce McKinlay <[email protected]> • #17239
RE: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:11:06 +0000
"Boehm, Hans" <[email protected]> • #17238
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Wed, 9 Sep 2009 23:52:37 -0400
Craig Vanderborgh <[email protected]> • #17237
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:11:49 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17236
Re: GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:50:11 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17235
GCJ 3.4.3 and 3.3 classloading problem
Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:20:46 -0400
Craig Vanderborgh <[email protected]> • #17234
Trunk in regular stage1 again
Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:13:34 +0200 (CEST)
Richard Guenther <[email protected]> • #17233
Re: PATCH: boehm-gc breakage between binutils 2.16.1 and 2.17 on FreeBSD [7.2]
Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:59:19 -0500 (CDT)
Loren James Rittle <[email protected]> • #17232
Regression fixes only
Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:37:42 +0200 (CEST)
Richard Guenther <[email protected]> • #17231
Re: PATCH: boehm-gc breakage between binutils 2.16.1 and 2.17 on FreeBSD [7.2]
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:08:26 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17230
PATCH: boehm-gc breakage between binutils 2.16.1 and 2.17 on FreeBSD [7.2]
Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:07:47 -0500 (CDT)
Loren James Rittle <[email protected]> • #17229
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:00:11 +0200
Andreas Krebbel <[email protected]> • #17228
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:00:24 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17227
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:11:05 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17226
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:05:11 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17225
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:44:55 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17224
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:33:23 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17223
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:11:18 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17222
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:38:06 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17221
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:32:58 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17220
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:56:20 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17219
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:22:56 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17218
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:33:57 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17217
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:43:35 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17216
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:42:49 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17215
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:10:36 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17214
Re: Compiling jar file using gcj
Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:05:51 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17213
Compiling jar file using gcj
Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:00:00 +0530
Swapnil Jain <[email protected]> • #17212
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:10:13 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17211
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:14:43 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17210
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:03:55 -0600
Tom Tromey <[email protected]> • #17209
JTRES 2009 Call for Participation
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:10:38 +0200
"Martin Schoeberl" <[email protected]> • #17208
Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:49:38 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17207
Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:25:52 +0530
Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh <[email protected]> • #17206
Re: libjava broken vs make -j?
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:36:26 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17205
Re: libjava broken vs make -j?
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:03:48 +0100
Andrew John Hughes <[email protected]> • #17204
Re: libjava broken vs make -j?
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:09:28 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17203
Re: libjava broken vs make -j?
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:50:02 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17202
libjava broken vs make -j?
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:54:34 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17201
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:25:06 -0700
"BGB" <[email protected]> • #17200
RE: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:41:33 +0000
"Boehm, Hans" <[email protected]> • #17199
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:32:39 +0200
Andreas Krebbel <[email protected]> • #17198
Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:50:07 -0700
David Daney <[email protected]> • #17197
Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:08:00 +0530
Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh <[email protected]> • #17196
Re: libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:43:00 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17195
libgcj missing symbol __data_start
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:20:46 +0200
"Andreas Krebbel" <[email protected]> • #17194
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:09:01 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17193
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:33:31 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17192
Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig.
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:38:10 +0100
Dave Korn <[email protected]> • #17191
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:25:32 +0100
Nix <[email protected]> • #17190
web services libraries comptabile with gcc ?
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:46:17 +0100
David Michel <[email protected]> • #17189
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:42:05 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17188
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:21:23 +0100
Nix <[email protected]> • #17187
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:23:50 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17186
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:48:01 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17185
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:12:49 +0100
Nix <[email protected]> • #17184
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:34:28 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17183
Re: [RFC PATCH] make libgcj_bc prims symbol sizes correct
Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:56:18 +0100
Andrew Haley <[email protected]> • #17182
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.