Is Java broken on the trunk?

Thu May 24 09:11:00 GMT 2001

I also don't think I tested without threads but with hash synchronization.
Can we just arrange to turn off hash synchronization in the no-threads case?
No-threads synchronization is pretty fast anyway :-) .
David Mosberger and I ran into a vaguely related issue yesterday. The 3.0
tree on Itanium seems to default to the no-threads case. This seems clearly
wrong for Java. Does it also imply that the default C++ runtime or
generated code is not thread-safe? That would also be clearly wrong. I
would argue for fixing it even in the 3.0 tree, since it will lead to subtle
hard-to-reproduce errors.
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Tromey [ mailto:tromey@redhat.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:02 AM
> To: Mark Mitchell
> Cc: java@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Is Java broken on the trunk?
>>> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>> Mark> I get:
>> Mark> ../../../libjava/java/lang/natObject.cc:506: ISO C++ 
> forbids declaration of 
> Mark> `_Jv_ThreadId_t' with no type
> Mark> ../../../libjava/java/lang/natObject.cc:506: parse 
> error before `;' token
>> Mark> when building libjava on the trunk. Is this a known problem?
>> Nope. This looks like it could only occur when configuring without a
> thread system. As soon as I can build a tree like that I will check
> in a fix. Sorry about that.
>> Tom
>