Re: Argument Against Removal of GCJ

2017-02-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22 February 2017 at 05:52, R0b0t1 wrote: > Many of the users of GCJ and GNU Classpath do not know they are users > and, even if they do know, are not aware that it is being considered > for removal from the GCC nor aware of this mailing list. It's not being considered for removal, it has alread

Re: Argument Against Removal of GCJ

2017-02-22 Thread Andrew Haley
On 22/02/17 05:52, R0b0t1 wrote: > I have found GCJ to be one of the best methods for bootstrapping > OpenJDK. No other method of adding support for new architectures that > does not involve working closely with OpenJDK upstream is known to me. That doesn't matter any more because OpenJDK has full

Argument Against Removal of GCJ

2017-02-21 Thread R0b0t1
I have found GCJ to be one of the best methods for bootstrapping OpenJDK. No other method of adding support for new architectures that does not involve working closely with OpenJDK upstream is known to me. It is, of course, possible to add any architecture without the use of GCJ, but if one wishes