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

Re: gcj/java status

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Please consider moving the following packages to testing:

> 	gcj-4.1

I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate. 
Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will build against any version of
gcc-4.1-source between 4.1.1 and 4.1.2?  How is this done, when the gcc-4.1
source package appears to incorporate various updates from svn into the
actual tarball being distributed?  Doesn't this imply that gcj-4.1 and
gcc-4.1 will need to be updated in lockstep?

> 	java-gcj-compat
> 	gcc-defaults
> 	ecj-bootstrap
> 	gjdoc

The rest of these have all been updated (I assume -- they're not all frozen,
so I think some of them went in on their own?).

>  - alpha: #390982, bus errors in the interpreter, doesn't show any
>    build issues, status of the runtime is rather unknown. Falk?

Bus errors on alpha are always non-fatal; all they do is dump errors to the
kernel log.  (This is also the default on hppa, but on alpha it's not even
possible to get SIGBUS except with a kernel patch.)

>  - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
>    currently non-functional, testsuite shows failures for all
>    interpreter test cases.
>    #388505: segfaults in gcj-dbtool-4.1, not addressed.

> Going back to gcj-4.0 for arm could be an alternative, at least simple
> programs did compile to native code and run sucessfully. The testsuite
> in 4.0 shows over 100 test failures, in 4.1 over 700. Reverting back
> to 4.0 for arm would mean to use an older java-gcj-compat for arm as
> well. Another alternative would be to replace the gcj runtime with
> kaffe, using patches from upstream CVS (suggested by Dalibor Topic).

> For etch, I currently don't have the time and hardware resource to
> spend work on arm.

Could Andrew be correct that this is a sign of an improved testsuite,
not a regression in the functionality for arm?

A build failure on arm is also the only thing keeping this updated version
of gcj-4.1 from being hinted into testing, though that seems to have been an
OOD error on the buildd; given back now.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: