Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3F7F8CEC.4000709@kleckner.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 20:15:56 -0700
From: Jim Kleckner <jek-cygwin AT kleckner DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gcc 3.3.3-1, gcc-mingw-20030911-2 missing java headers
References: <20030921000411 DOT 86E4632A822 AT redhat DOT com> <3F7E2B7A DOT 2030804 AT kleckner DOT net> <20031004022816 DOT GC9995 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam



Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 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."


I see.  You only appeared to invite investigation.
This gcc announcement page that I referenced in my first email
said nothing about gcj or java problems.
  http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.3/changes.html
I did substantial searching, downloading and recompiling.
But all you can do is to write it off with a flip comment.

These kinds of responses are very discouraging to people

who want to help.



--
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/