Is gcj dead?

Tue Oct 20 14:45:00 GMT 2009

On 2009年10月20日, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Joel Dice wrote:
>> On 2009年10月20日, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>> I don't understand the comment
>>>>>> "I will attach a patch which fixes the first case but not the second
>>> (since I'm
>>> not sure how the second case was intended to be handled)."
>>>>>> What second case is that?
>>>> Sorry it's not clear. The "second case" refers to the xy__User symbol
>> in the example program, which is not fixed by the patch because it
>> includes the sequence "__U". Only the first case, in which the
>> underscores and "U" are not consecutive, is fixed.
>> OK.
>>>> BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it
>>> would have
>>> gone straight in.
>>>> I submitted it to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (at your request) over two
>> years ago:
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2007-04/msg00007.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00015.html
>>>> I didn't realize that it also needed to go to java-patches.
>> Oh no, I'm really sorry. This was my fault, I simply forgot.

No problem - I forgot about it, too, until now :)
> It seems that I was waiting for a complete patch, but one never arrived.
> Any patch that goes in now really must be correct and complete, though.

Agreed. My (possibly naive) suggestion would be to use an escape 
character or sequence which cannot appear in Java symbol ($$U, perhaps?).
> I'll have a look now.
>> Andrew.