Current Status

[Chris Tomlinson]

I guess my question regarding the status of the runtime perhaps got
overlooked.

The gcj is of course in the public CVS tree so we can see its daily
progress; however, we haven't any visibility into the runtime and so it
would most appreciated if there were at least some sort of update on it
and what sort of licensing is anticipated.

I think that most of the traffic on this list over the past 9 months has
indicated that there are a lot of people that are most concerned with
server-side applications for which awt isn't a concern.

Speaking for myself, I am most interested in whether there will be an
alpha version within the next 1, 2, 3, or 4 quarters or whether the
horizon is anticipated to be well beyond that time frame. I'm not asking
for the engineering schedules and such just a ballpark of what is
intended.

Thanks and ciao,
Christine Tomlinson

Tom Tromey wrote:

> >>>>> "joe" == joe  <joe@pandora.earthlight.co.nz> writes:
>
> joe> Hi I was wondering what the current status of the gcj front end
> joe> is.  I look at the the web page every so often but it does not
> joe> look as though it has been changed since it was put up last year.
>
> The web page hasn't really changed to my knowledge.  However, work
> proceeds on gcj itself.  In order to see this, take a look at the cvs
> repository (there might be a cvsweb setup that you could look at, but
> offhand I don't know where it would be).
>
> joe> Is gcj now at a stage where it can be used for anything [I would
> joe> most likely be wanting to use it for cgi style applications
> joe> rather than gui type] or is it currently still something that may
> joe> be of use sometime in the future.
>
> We still haven't released the runtime, so gcj isn't directly usable as
> a native code compiler.
>
> You can use gcj to generate bytecodes using the `-C' option.  Of
> course, you still need a runtime, so this probably isn't all that
> interesting.  You could use gcj to compile and then use Sun's runtime,
> I suppose.  I don't remember ever trying this myself.
>
> Tom