Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/10/03/22:28:36
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 07:07:54PM -0700, Jim Kleckner wrote:
>Is it possible the java code simply wasn't configured to build?
>All of the java headers are missing.
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>I've moved all of the latest gcc stuff out of "test" and into "current".
>>This is the standard gcc 3.3.1 release from gcc.gnu.org + patches from
>>Danny Smith and (to a vastly lesser extent) me. If you are interested
>>in checking these sources out of gcc's cvs repository, the branch tag is
>>cygming331. But, please, no questions about where to go or how to do
>>that on the cygwin list. Go to gcc.gnu.org for that kind of info.
>
>[snip]
>
>>There were vague reports of gcj being broken during the gcc test period
>>but I never saw a true bug report for this. Since I'm not a java user,
>>I can only provide this as-is.
>
>
>Here are the things I looked at:
So, you checked everything but the release announcement which said:
"There were vague reports of gcj being broken during the gcc test period
but I never saw a true bug report for this. Since I'm not a java user,
I can only provide this as-is."
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -