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

Re: gcj/java status

Andrew Haley writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>  > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>  > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>  > 
>  > >  - 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.
> Is no-one interested in actually fixing this?  We could, for the first
> time, get gcj running properly on ARM.

Most of the arm port maintainers seem to be MIA.  I tried to contact
Phil Blundell during the past three or four months, but didn't get any
reply.  We need to get the copyright assignment from Phil to properly
submit that code upstream.

Steve did point out the lack of development machines for ARM, maybe we
should update that fact on the matrix of the etch release
architectures as well.

I will not have time for gcj work on ARM for the next three or four
weeks beeing on conferences/vacations.


Reply to: