Is gcj dead?

Mon Oct 19 20:00:00 GMT 2009

On 2009年10月19日, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> 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