On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:35:45AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 21:59 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:41:45PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 13:27 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > > > > > Lets drop support for gcj < 3.4 now (3.3 is really ancient). And only > > > > > support gcj 4.0+ after the next snapshot (0.16) next month. GCC 4.0 > > > > > isn't included in many distributions yet. Hopefully in 3 months when > > > > > 0.17 comes out this won't be a problem anymore. > > > > > > > > Depending on GCJ 3.4 and up gains us nothing as 3.4 has the same inner > > > > classes bugs > > > > as 3.3 has. > > > > > > As does 4.0 probably. > > > What it gains us is less versions to test against. > > > > 4.0 has some fixes in this area. 3.3 and 3.4 is the same in this area. > > Noone will do fixes for 3.4 and older anymore. When we force people to fix > > 4.0 this is good. With the workarounds in classpath noone will ever fix > > the bugs. > > I am unsure what your suggestion is. My suggestion is that we drop > support (and workarounds, if any) for gcj 3.3 starting now. And drop > support for gcj < 4.0 after 0.16. Is that acceptable or do you think > that is not agressive enough?
I think its not aggressive enough as supporting 3.4 means 3.3 will work too as they are the same in this area. I vote for depending on 4.0 now. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
