Re: Is gcj dead?

[Andrew Haley]

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?

Andrew.

[Yuri-10]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> 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?
>  

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41356
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41361
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41372
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41375
And today I added one more:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41745


Yuri

[Andrew Haley]

Yuri wrote:

> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> 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?
>>  
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41356
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41361

Can't reproduce this.
This is presumably a bug in the FreeBSD port of gcj.
I'm not sure who maintains gcj on FreeBSD.

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41372
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41375
> And today I added one more:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41745

All of these seem to be FreeBSD specific.  I think that the FreeBSD
port must be broken.

The best plan is to build gcj from source and run the libgcj test
suite.  Then we'll know how brain-damaged the FreeBSD port really is.

Andrew.

[malat]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> 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

Thanks
--
Mathieu

[Andrew Haley]

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> 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.

Andrew.

[malat]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:

> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> 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. On those the JAVA implementation is
GCJ. Hopefully by then OpenJDK-6 will compile on HPPA ...

Can you set bug as won't fix or something like that ?

--
Mathieu

[Andrew Haley]

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> 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?

> On those the JAVA implementation is
> GCJ. Hopefully by then OpenJDK-6 will compile on HPPA ...

> Can you set bug as won't fix or something like that ?

I should, I suppose.

Andrew.

[malat]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:

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

Thanks,
--
Mathieu

[Andrew Haley]

Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

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

Andrew.

[Joel Dice]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

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

[Andrew Haley]

Joel Dice wrote:

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

BTW, if this patch had been submitted to java-patches at the time it would have
gone straight in.

Andrew.

[Joel Dice]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Joel Dice wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>> 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.

> 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@... (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.

[Andrew Haley]

Joel Dice wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>>> 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@... (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.

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.

I'll have a look now.

Andrew.

[Joel Dice]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Joel Dice wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>>>> 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@... (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.

[Joel Dice]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joel Dice wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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@... (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?).

Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in
identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated code
and legacy compatibility).

>> I'll have a look now.
>>
>> Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

Joel Dice wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Joel Dice wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ($$U, perhaps?).
>
> Actually, "$$U" may not be ideal - the Java spec permits "$" in
> identifiers (but recommends only using it for mechanically generated
> code and legacy compatibility).

I am not at all sure this *can* be fixed in any sensible way.  The best we
could probably do is fix gjavah to emit

  static void xy__U_ser();

instead of

  static void xy__User();

This is slightly unpleasant, but at least it's tolerable.

I'm not really sure that it's worth doing, though.

Andrew.