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:
[snip]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.
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/