Stable release?

Sat Apr 1 00:00:00 GMT 2000

Matt> I guess I don't understand the problem here. Isn't the
Matt> Java-specific portion of EGCS maintained by people *on this
Matt> list*? What, then, is the problem with making branded versions
Matt> of EGCS/LIBGCJ available to people on the GCJ website?
As Andrew says, the problem is one of testing. We need at least the
C, C++, and Java front ends to all work with the back end. Since bugs
randomly crop up, especially with the rate of change on gcc, this is
hard to do. Eg, look at the -fno-builtin thing with the current
compiler.
Matt> This situation is certainly hurting the GCJ project.
FWIW, I agree with you. I would like to do more releases than we've
done. I'd like to see what comes out of Per's talk with the gcc
maintainers. Maybe we could get them to do a 2.95.3, and put a new
gcj in it. I don't know.
Matt> The Java support in the compiler itself isn't changing that much
Matt> ... is it?
It is changing more than you think. More to come.
Tom