Tim Ellison wrote:
Magnusson, Geir wrote:
Why? We have Sun and Eclipse with a wrapper-thingy, right?
Not yet we don't -- if people are comfortable with the idea then let me
have a play to see what is required and get back to the list.
Ok - since the current version of eclipse works the way
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
my point is that we could hack the Eclipse batch compiler to make it do
something it is not meant to do (source=1.5 target=1.4). If we get
burnt then we'll have nobody to complain to ;-)
...
As it stands we have no option to use the Eclipse batch compi
it will happen pretty much of its own accord.
Dan Lydick
> [Original Message]
> From: George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 4/5/06 7:29:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [classlib] Switching to a 5.0 compiler
>
> Hi,
>
> Using the Sun 5.0 javac with the &quo
Magnusson, Geir wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:54 AM
>> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [classlib] Switching to a 5.0 compiler
>>
>> Mikhail
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Magnusson, Geir wrote:
>> Maybe you could tell them about "source=1.5 target=jsr14" given that's
>> the behavior of the Sun's.
>
> Of course, pushing the patch upstream has precedence on my previous
> solution. How silly of me not to have suggested that first!
I wouldn't
Yes, that would work.
Regards,
Tim
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> my point is that we could hack the Eclipse batch compiler to make it do
>> something it is not meant to do (source=1.5 target=1.4). If we get
>> burnt then we'll have nobody to complain to ;-)
>> ...
>> As it stands
Magnusson, Geir wrote:
> Maybe you could tell them about "source=1.5 target=jsr14" given that's
> the behavior of the Sun's.
Of course, pushing the patch upstream has precedence on my previous
solution. How silly of me not to have suggested that first!
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> my point is that we could hack the Eclipse batch compiler to make it do
> something it is not meant to do (source=1.5 target=1.4). If we get
> burnt then we'll have nobody to complain to ;-)
> ...
> As it stands we have no option to use the Eclipse batch compiler
> (without tw
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [classlib] Switching to a 5.0 compiler
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > 2006/4/5, George Harley &
Sorry about posting from outlook..
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:52 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [classlib] Switching to a 5.0 compiler
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2006/4/5, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Using the Sun 5.0 javac with the "jsr14" target it is possible to do a
>> complete compile of the Harmony Java source and successfully run the
>> tests on the existing VME. That means we could add in more contribution
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> A while ago we agreed to switch to a class library compilation story
>> that would allow us to use 1.5 Java syntax on a 1.4-compatible VM (i.e.
>> using syntax that is erased by the compiler).
>>
>> Here's where I'm at...
>>
>>
>> Using the Sun compi
2006/4/5, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Using the Sun 5.0 javac with the "jsr14" target it is possible to do a
> complete compile of the Harmony Java source and successfully run the
> tests on the existing VME. That means we could add in more contributions
> that depended on 5.0 lang
Hi,
Using the Sun 5.0 javac with the "jsr14" target it is possible to do a
complete compile of the Harmony Java source and successfully run the
tests on the existing VME. That means we could add in more contributions
that depended on 5.0 language features being understood instead of
letting t
On 4/5/06, Etienne Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that using Sun's javac and Eclipse with their undocumented and
> unsupported options during the "transition period" seems the cleanest
> strategy for both class library and VM maintenance. I see no trouble
> having such a dependency fo
I think that using Sun's javac and Eclipse with their undocumented and
unsupported options during the "transition period" seems the cleanest
strategy for both class library and VM maintenance. I see no trouble
having such a dependency for a limited period of time (a few months).
Etienne
Geir Mag
Tim Ellison wrote:
A while ago we agreed to switch to a class library compilation story
that would allow us to use 1.5 Java syntax on a 1.4-compatible VM (i.e.
using syntax that is erased by the compiler).
Here's where I'm at...
Using the Sun compiler:
Specifying source=1.5 and target=1.4 (
17 matches
Mail list logo
