[fedora-java] Secondary review of a Java package

[Dr Andrew John Hughes]

On 12:32 Tue 10 Aug     , Göran Uddeborg wrote:
> Andrew Haley:
> > On 08/10/2010 11:10 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The sensible rule everyone seems to use is that if adding gcj support
> > >> doesn't require much effort, add it.  If not, don't.
> > >
> > > As gcj is at 1.5 JVM level there is no point in having gcj support for
> > > packages that require Java 1.6.
> > 
> > Yes, obviously.  I don't quite understand the point you're making,
> > though: clearly if a package requires 1.6 then adding gcj support
> > requires much effort, so don't add it.
> 
> The source code does not require 1.6.  According to the documentation
> of the package, 1.2.2 is enough.  (I haven't tried anything less than
> 1.5.)
> 
> Originally I had 1.2.2 as a build requirement.  When doing a build in
> a minimal environment, like mock, that requirement is met by the GCJ
> compiler.  Compiling with the GCJ javac caused very many warnings,
> though, as my reviewer pointed out.  The 1.6.0 javac didn't give all
> those warnings.
> 

Warnings or errors?  gcj uses ecj under the hood, which is more
verbose by default (more equivalent to javac -Xlint:all).  The OpenJDK
source code produces ~10k warnings when compiled this way but still
works.  In particular, it warns about generics usage and deprecation
on a per-use basis, whereas javac gives a single warning by default.
It even moans about unused import statements.

Sadly, one problem with gcj is the documentation seems to be very
outdated and so I'm not sure how the options to modify this (such
as -nowarn) are translated to its command-line options.

> So the reason there is a requirement of 1.6.0 (to be changed to
> 1:1.6.0) in there is to enforce that compiler to be used for
> compilation, from .java to .class.  GCJ then, as I understand it,
> takes the .jar files and makes .so files from them.  And that seems to
> work fine with .jar files made with 1.6.0.
> 
> But maybe I'm doing things wrong here?  Is there a better way to make
> sure the compilation is done with 1.6.0?  Or shouldn't I do that at
> all?
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> java-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8