Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:58:21 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Interesting project -- getting gjc working on Cygwin
Message-ID: <20010317205821.B23000@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010317130234 DOT A8743 AT redhat DOT com> <Pine DOT HPP DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 1010317181356 DOT 14823B-100000 AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1010317181356.14823B-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from khan@NanoTech.Wisc.EDU on Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:25:46PM -0600

On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:25:46PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Anyone interested in tackling the project of getting the gcj compiler
>> fully supported under Cygwin?  I don't know what this would entail,
>> exactly.
>> 
>> Maybe Mumit knows?  Mumit?
>
>The compiler should, at least in theory, work just fine under Cygwin, but 
>the problem is the runtime. It's hard to port libgcj to Cygwin (threading 
>is just one issue), and I don't know what the current status is. Jon
>Beniston <jon AT sentinelware DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> was working on it, and at one
>point had a non-threaded version ported to Cygwin [1], but his last known
>URL http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~jb7216/libgcj/ seems to gone now.
>
>I don't do Java, and not familiar with the gory details on what needs to
>be done.
>
>[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/1999-q3/msg00240.html

This is my understanding too.  There's no reason why the compiler couldn't
be built -- I don't do it now for gcc because it would just confuse people.

The library is the problem.

cgf