classpath
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

drop <gcj 4.0 support


From: Robert Schuster
Subject: drop <gcj 4.0 support
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:10:51 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050514

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Michael Koch writes:
>  > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 04:00:53AM +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
>   > > 
>  > > As these errors do not happen with GCJ 4.0 I suppose the problem comes
>  > > from a bug of the earlier GCJ versions. Do our GCJ people know about a
>  > > problem where the compiler messed up the import functionality?
>  > 
>  > More then one. I take this now to start another discusion...
>  > 
>  > We should really support GCJ starting with version 4.0.0. We have
>  > some problems with GCJ 3.3 and 3.4: either some stuff is not
>  > implementable with them (see problems with inner classes in Swing)
>  > or we added stupid workarounds for them that are not needed with
>  > more sane java compilers like GCJ 4.0 or jikes. Dont get me wrong
>  > these are not perfect too. But they are much better then GCJ 3.3
>  > and 3.4.
>  > 
>  > So my call now: Let us update to depend on GCJ 4.0.0 as a minimum
>  > when building with GCJ. The Building with jikes or other java
>  > compilers should be unaffected by this.
>  > 
>  > What do you think?
> 
> Unless someone is going to start backporting gcj patches to 3.3, it
> will be necessary to use a later compiler.  I can't see anyone
> volunteering to do the work on 3.3.  In any case, we have lots to do
> -- fixing 3.3 isn't a great use of anyone's time.
> 
I just want to note that there is always the possibility to use Jikes.

Michael, how should we handle gcj <4 from now on?

a) Print an error message when detected as only available compiler and
abort.

b) Print a warning ("gcj 3.3 is unsupported - compilation may break")
but continue compilation?

And to our GCC freaks: How has libstc++ handled such problems? (I assume
that they had similar issues with g++ here.)

cu
Robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCje/rG9cfwmwwEtoRAkZUAJ96ceTjAiQ/UFt5O5O21dCoQKO1rgCeKRU2
TgTWQh3mvr0Jm1v8F74foOI=
=XpQ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]