On 08/20/2015 04:32 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
OK, so how about deprecating Java for GCC 6 by removing it from the default
languages and removing it for GCC 7 or before we switch to git (whatever
happens earlier?)
Yeah, that's what I suggested at the end of [0] so +1 from me.
Works for me and i
- Original Message -
> On August 20, 2015 7:35:37 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Hughes
> wrote:
> >- Original Message -
> >> snip...
> >> >
> >> > Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future
> >git)
> >> > repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> OK, so how about deprecating Java for GCC 6 by removing it from the
> default languages and removing it for GCC 7 or before we switch to git
> (whatever happens earlier?)
I don't think "before we switch to git" should be a relevant consideration
for
On August 20, 2015 7:35:37 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Hughes
wrote:
>- Original Message -
>> snip...
>> >
>> > Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future
>git)
>> > repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of the
>> > distributed source tarball.
>> >
>>
- Original Message -
> On 08/20/2015 10:03 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> On 08/20/2015 09:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>> On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>
- Original Message -
> snip...
> >
> > Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future git)
> > repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of the
> > distributed source tarball.
> >
> > If we can get rid of that that would be a great step in reducing the
>
On 08/20/2015 10:03 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 08/20/2015 09:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Andrew> No, it i
snip...
>
> Having classpath (with binary files!) In the GCC SVN (or future git)
> repository is a significant burden, not to mention the size of the
> distributed source tarball.
>
> If we can get rid of that that would be a great step in reducing the burden.
>
> Iff we can even without classpa
On 08/20/2015 05:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> So gij, witten in C++ is enough?
No: the runtime library needs gcj.
Andrew.
On August 20, 2015 6:08:25 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
>On 08/20/2015 05:03 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> The issue is that we're still supporting a version of OpenJDK/IcedTea
>where
>> there is no previous version (6).
>
>Surely OpenJDK 6 can build itself. And in the unlikely event of an
>en
On August 20, 2015 5:52:55 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Hughes
wrote:
>- Original Message -
>> On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> > - Original Message -
>> >> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> >>> On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Andrew> No, it isn'
- Original Message -
> On 08/20/2015 05:03 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > The issue is that we're still supporting a version of OpenJDK/IcedTea where
> > there is no previous version (6).
>
> Surely OpenJDK 6 can build itself. And in the unlikely event of an
> entirely new architecture wh
On 08/20/2015 05:03 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> The issue is that we're still supporting a version of OpenJDK/IcedTea where
> there is no previous version (6).
Surely OpenJDK 6 can build itself. And in the unlikely event of an
entirely new architecture which has No OpenJDK we'd have to grab an
old
- Original Message -
> On 08/20/2015 09:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a ne
- Original Message -
> On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping
> of
> A
On 08/20/2015 09:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
Andrew> OpenJDK/Ic
On 08/20/2015 03:57 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
Andrew Haley s
- Original Message -
> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
>
> Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html
>
Andrew Haley doesn't do releases of IcedTea 1.x and 2.x eve
- Original Message -
> On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
> >> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
> >>
> >> Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu
On 20/08/15 09:24, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
>> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
>>
>> Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html
>
On 08/20/2015 06:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
> Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
>
> Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html
if you need bootstrapping OpenJDK 6 or OpenJDK 7,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> > Attached patch fixes:
>> >
>> > Makefile:871: warning: overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc'
>> > Makefile:786: warning: ignoring old recipe for target
Andrew> No, it isn't. It's still a necessity for initial bootstrapping of
Andrew> OpenJDK/IcedTea.
Andrew Haley said the opposite here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00537.html
Tom
- Original Message -
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > Attached patch fixes:
> >
> > Makefile:871: warning: overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc'
> > Makefile:786: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'gjdoc'
> >
> > build warning when compiling libjava.
> >
> >
- Original Message -
> Jeff> It's probably time for the occasional discussion WRT dropping
> Jeff> gcj/libjava from the default languages and replace them with either
> Jeff> Ada or Go.
>
> It's long past time to remove it. It's only had minimal maintenance for
> years now. No one is wri
On 14/08/15 08:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> So what about removing classpath from the repository? We still
> retain basic language support via java/ javax/ and gnu/ that way
> I believe.
I don't think we do.
Andrew.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/2015 04:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>
> Jef
On 08/13/2015 04:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will
asynch-exceptions
Jeff> be tested and
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will
>>> asynch-exceptions
>>> Jeff> be tested and the like.
>>>
>>> It seems t
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> If you're comfortable with Go at this point and we have mechanisms in place
> to ensure Go only gets built on platforms that support Go, then I think we
> should go forward with replacing GCJ with Go.
We have the mechanism for disabling Go on s
On 08/12/2015 10:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will asynch-exceptions
Jeff> be tested and the like.
It seems to me that either there is some other language which needs this
-- in which cas
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will asynch-exceptions
> Jeff> be tested and the like.
>
> It seems to me that either there is some other language which needs this
> -- in which case that language ought to have testing for
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 12/08/15 15:44, Jeff Law wrote:
>> My inclination is to replace GCJ with Go, but Ian wasn't comfortable
>> with that when I suggested it a couple years ago.
>
> Because Go wasn't ready for prime time?
I don't remember why I wasn't comforta
Jeff> In the past this has stalled on issues like how will asynch-exceptions
Jeff> be tested and the like.
It seems to me that either there is some other language which needs this
-- in which case that language ought to have testing for the feature --
or the feature is only used by gcj, in which c
On 12/08/15 15:44, Jeff Law wrote:
> My inclination is to replace GCJ with Go, but Ian wasn't comfortable
> with that when I suggested it a couple years ago.
Because Go wasn't ready for prime time?
Andrew.
On 08/11/2015 08:47 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jeff> It's probably time for the occasional discussion WRT dropping
Jeff> gcj/libjava from the default languages and replace them with either
Jeff> Ada or Go.
It's long past time to remove it. It's only had minimal maintenance for
years now. No one is
Jeff> It's probably time for the occasional discussion WRT dropping
Jeff> gcj/libjava from the default languages and replace them with either
Jeff> Ada or Go.
It's long past time to remove it. It's only had minimal maintenance for
years now. No one is writing new features for it or fixing bugs.
On 08/11/2015 01:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/11/2015 07:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
It's probably time for the occasional discussion WRT dropping
gcj/libjava from the default languages and replace them with either Ada
or Go.
gcj/libjava are dead IMHO.
I have no objections. GCJ has been treme
On 08/11/2015 07:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's probably time for the occasional discussion WRT dropping
> gcj/libjava from the default languages and replace them with either Ada
> or Go.
>
> gcj/libjava are dead IMHO.
I have no objections. GCJ has been tremendously useful bootstrapping
the Ope
On 08/11/2015 12:03 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Attached patch fixes:
Makefile:871: warning: overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc'
Makefile:786: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'gjdoc'
build warning when compiling libjava.
The problem was
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Attached patch fixes:
>
> Makefile:871: warning: overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc'
> Makefile:786: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'gjdoc'
>
> build warning when compiling libjava.
>
> The problem was in configure.ac: we have to depe
Hello!
Attached patch fixes:
Makefile:871: warning: overriding recipe for target 'gjdoc'
Makefile:786: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'gjdoc'
build warning when compiling libjava.
The problem was in configure.ac: we have to depend gjdoc build on
CREATE_WRAPPERS in the same way as other
42 matches
Mail list logo
