Please reenable GCJ on mips

[Thiemo Seufer]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us
> >bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you
> >might want to persuade me. :)
> ...
> 
> >So, I think we can say that this bug is even forwarded to upstream, as
> >mips Inc is aware of it and working on a fix.
> 
> I begin to get the picture.
> 
> Apparently the MIPS ABI is just plain broken.  It contains some sort of 
> impassable hard limit on relocation table size, breaking random packages at 
> random times with no possible fix.  Nobody can fix this without changing 
> the ABI.

That's wrong.

> Lovely.  Good grief, I would not want to support this architecture under 
> those circumstances, but as long as it doesn't interfere with supporting 
> other architectures, if you think you can do it, that's fine.
> 
> It seems to me that at a minimum, whenever this bug gets hit any fallout 
> should be prevented from interfering
> with any other architectures.  In other words, a GOT table overflow on MIPS 
> should immediately mean ignoring MIPS for purposes of testing propagation 
> of that package and all indirectly dependent packages.

Which is what happened before sarge by removing the affected packages
for mips/mipsel.


Thiemo