Andrew John Hughes wrote: > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > >>From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>To: GCC Mailing List <gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, java@xxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: Re: GCC SC request about ecj >>Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:59:58 -0700 >> >>Richard stallman write last night: >> >> I agree to the use of the Eclipse front end to generate >> Java byte codes. >> >>Note this does not mean importing Eclispe code into the gcc source or >>release tree. We need to decide on a practical way to have people >>grab a compatible version of ecj. > > > From the above e-mail, it looks as if gcj will shortly be linking in ecj > as its front end. With this, gcj will be able to handle 1.5 constructs. > > What do people think of now beginning the merge of the generics branch > back on to HEAD? Given that both ecj and now gcj will support building > this, we could limit our requirements to these. Recent CVS has already > encountered problems building with older versions of gcj and jikes, and > this change would also allow us to remove these hacks from our code. > > Thoughts? I think it would be putting the cart before the horse. Although we should definitely be thinking about doing it, I think it would be better to wait until the GCJ infrastructure needed to build it is ready to be committed to the GCC trunk. Well that's my $0.02. David Daney.
