GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath

Thu May 7 17:20:00 GMT 2009

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>> On Thu, 2009年05月07日 at 17:31 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009年05月07日 at 16:28 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> 2009年5月7日 Chris Gray <chris.gray@kiffer.be>:
>>>>> Quoth Andrew John Hughes:
>>>>>>> Huh? I was assuming Java compatibility was the goal.
>>>>> Compatibility with the non-existent specification for Java 7, or with the
>>>>> equally non-existent JCK for Java 7 (for which there is no JSR)? <G, D & R>
>>>>>>>>> Neither; the JCK for OpenJDK6 which the builds of IcedTea in Fedora have passed:
>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/
>>> I don't think that is a serious option, that is only available under NDA
>>> and only granted to people who sign an SCA with Sun and even then access
>>> is only granted if Sun feels like it.
>> So why is it not a serious option?
>> Because it isn't a thing that a free software community can do
> collaboratively in the open and involves requiring proprietary software.
> Maybe a third party could do it for their own binary builds, but I don't
> see how we as a community can recommend it, nor would I want to
> recommend it myself.

That doesn't make it not a serious option. It just means that
you don't want to do it, and you don't think that the gcj
community should do it. It's still a serious option.
>>> That said, adopting something like jigsaw for the core class library and
>>> then having the option to switch modules seems a fine idea.
>>> Compatibility is much more about running actually code than some opaque
>>> proprietary test suite.
>> It's about *both*. All the JCK does is make sure you've implemented the
>> APIs as specified.
>> :) Since the JCK is under NDA that claim is not verifiable. But you
> could say that the JCK assumes one particular interpretation yeah.
> Still, if a secret test suite would say things should work one way, but
> actual programs expect things differently I would go with not breaking
> existing stuff.

This is FUD, plain and simple. What evidence do you have of programs
that require Java behaviour at odds with the JCK?
Andrew.