Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: Well, -classpath(jdk), --classpath(gcj). It appears to me that gcj supports both -classpath and --classpath equally. It does not support the newer -cp option. However, gij does not appear to support either option, though it does support a CLASSPATH environment variable. It also s

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Per Bothner wrote: > Adam Heath wrote: > > >I have found that, in theory, gcj and gij are compatible, in reality they are > >not. To be compatable, they *MUST* take *EXACTLY* the same arguments as > >other > >standard $(JAVA) and $(JAVAC). > > > >I've had to put special code

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: I have found that, in theory, gcj and gij are compatible, in reality they are not. To be compatable, they *MUST* take *EXACTLY* the same arguments as other standard $(JAVA) and $(JAVAC). I've had to put special code into my own build system to switch between standard jvms and the

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: On 20 Nov 2001, Tom Tromey wrote: "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the Ben> gcc maintainers not

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On 20 Nov 2001, Tom Tromey wrote: > > "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > >> should be fixed to provide java-runtime. > > Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the > Ben> gcc mainta

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Per Bothner wrote: > Ben Burton wrote: > > >>Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > >>should be fixed to provide java-runtime. > >> > > > >Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc > >maintainers not to provide java-runtime

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: >Well, -classpath(jdk), --classpath(gcj). > It appears to me that gcj supports both -classpath and --classpath equally. It does not support the newer -cp option. However, gij does not appear to support either option, though it does support a CLASSPATH environment variable. It

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Per Bothner wrote: > Adam Heath wrote: > > >I have found that, in theory, gcj and gij are compatible, in reality they are > >not. To be compatable, they *MUST* take *EXACTLY* the same arguments as other > >standard $(JAVA) and $(JAVAC). > > > >I've had to put special code in

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: >I have found that, in theory, gcj and gij are compatible, in reality they are >not. To be compatable, they *MUST* take *EXACTLY* the same arguments as other >standard $(JAVA) and $(JAVAC). > >I've had to put special code into my own build system to switch between >standard jvm

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Per Bothner
Adam Heath wrote: >On 20 Nov 2001, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>"Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) should be fixed to provide java-runtime. >>Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on beh

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On 20 Nov 2001, Tom Tromey wrote: > > "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > >> should be fixed to provide java-runtime. > > Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the > Ben> gcc maint

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-21 Thread Adam Heath
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Per Bothner wrote: > Ben Burton wrote: > > >>Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > >>should be fixed to provide java-runtime. > >> > > > >Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc > >maintainers not to provide java-runtim

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) >> should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the Ben> gcc maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Per Bothner
Ben Burton wrote: Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons such as command-line incompatibility, etc). The "gi

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Ben Burton
> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons such as command-line incompatibility, etc). Ben. -- Ben Burt

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Ean Schuessler
On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 13:52, Ben Burton wrote: > > Hi. Just out of interest, is anyone planning to look at the porting problems > with kaffe? AFAICT, kaffe is being kept out of testing because of failed > builds on sparc and m68k. By my understanding, this is problematic because > kaffe is t

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Per Bothner
Ben Burton wrote: Hi. Just out of interest, is anyone planning to look at the porting problems with kaffe? AFAICT, kaffe is being kept out of testing because of failed builds on sparc and m68k. By my understanding, this is problematic because kaffe is the only package in main that provides ja

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) >> should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Ben> Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the Ben> gcc maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Per Bothner
Ben Burton wrote: >>Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) >>should be fixed to provide java-runtime. >> > >Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc >maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons such as command-line >incompatibility,

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Ben Burton
> Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is) > should be fixed to provide java-runtime. Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons such as command-line incompatibility, etc). Ben. -- Ben Bur

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Ean Schuessler
On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 13:52, Ben Burton wrote: > > Hi. Just out of interest, is anyone planning to look at the porting problems > with kaffe? AFAICT, kaffe is being kept out of testing because of failed > builds on sparc and m68k. By my understanding, this is problematic because > kaffe is

Re: kaffe status

2001-11-20 Thread Per Bothner
Ben Burton wrote: >Hi. Just out of interest, is anyone planning to look at the porting problems >with kaffe? AFAICT, kaffe is being kept out of testing because of failed >builds on sparc and m68k. By my understanding, this is problematic because >kaffe is the only package in main that provi

Re: kaffe status update

1999-11-07 Thread Ean R . Schuessler
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 05:11:20PM -0800, Tim Wilkinson wrote: > Do you really think 1.0.5 is less stable than 1.0b4? 1.0.5 contains lots > of new stuff which might be unstable - but I still think it's more stable > over all (I can certainly run a lot more stuff with it). The native threads stuff