On 08/10/2010 12:08 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > On 12:32 Tue 10 Aug , Göran Uddeborg wrote: >> Andrew Haley: >>> On 08/10/2010 11:10 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The sensible rule everyone seems to use is that if adding gcj support >>>>> doesn't require much effort, add it. If not, don't. >>>> >>>> As gcj is at 1.5 JVM level there is no point in having gcj support for >>>> packages that require Java 1.6. >>> >>> Yes, obviously. I don't quite understand the point you're making, >>> though: clearly if a package requires 1.6 then adding gcj support >>> requires much effort, so don't add it. >> >> The source code does not require 1.6. According to the documentation >> of the package, 1.2.2 is enough. (I haven't tried anything less than >> 1.5.) >> >> Originally I had 1.2.2 as a build requirement. When doing a build in >> a minimal environment, like mock, that requirement is met by the GCJ >> compiler. Compiling with the GCJ javac caused very many warnings, >> though, as my reviewer pointed out. The 1.6.0 javac didn't give all >> those warnings. > > Warnings or errors? gcj uses ecj under the hood, which is more > verbose by default (more equivalent to javac -Xlint:all). The OpenJDK > source code produces ~10k warnings when compiled this way but still > works. In particular, it warns about generics usage and deprecation > on a per-use basis, whereas javac gives a single warning by default. > It even moans about unused import statements. Indeed. It's interesting that all this pointless bellyaching ecj does makes people think something has gone wrong. Andrew. -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
