This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 0/3] Fix various bugs found by static analysis
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: qiyaoltc at gmail dot com, tom at tromey dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:04:53 +0300
- Subject: Re: [RFA 0/3] Fix various bugs found by static analysis
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <CAH=s-PM=1iJrBB_qAa_NY+yCNRJ1wDs135Aju_6J=aZW6A_Axg@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: Pedro Alves <email@example.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:30:58 +0100
> On 10/04/2016 04:14 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> * PR 20654, incorrect code in java_value_print. Now that gcj has been
> >> removed, I think it's probably better to simply remove the Java
> >> language support. If this sounds ok, let me know, and I can provide
> >> a patch.
> > I am fine to remove java language support in GDB, but I'd like to hear
> > what other people think about this.
> I'm fine with removing gcj support, but then again I never really
> needed it personally.
Shouldn't we wait for some time? I mean, gcj may have been removed,
but that doesn't mean all of its installations have been deleted, or
that no one out there uses the last release, and will use them for
How about just not making any significant maintenance efforts for it
from now on?