Here is the revised patch.

2004-08-24  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

     * dwarf2read.c (typename_concat): Change prototype to accept dwarf2_cu
     struct pointer as argument.  Change function to use new argument to
     determine language.  If language is Java, use "." as separator,
     otherwise, use "::".
     (partial_die_parent_scope): Change comment to include java.  Check
     language to determine if Java "." or C++ "::" separator should be used.
     (add_partial_symbol): Enhance tests for C++ to also test for Java.
     (guess_structure_name): Ditto.
     (read_subroutine_type): Ditto.
     (new_symbol): Ditto.
     (read_structure_type): Add Java vtable support.
     (read_namespace): Add Java support.
     * jv-exp.y (FuncStart): New pattern.
     (MethodInvocation): Add support for simple function calls.  Change
     warning message for other forms of inferior call currently not
     supported.
     * valarith.c (value_subscript): Treat an array with upper-bound
     of -1 as unknown size.

gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2004-08-24  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

     * gdb.java/jprint.exp: New test for java inferior call.
     * gdb.java/jprint.java: Ditto.


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:47:09PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:55:07PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:59PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This patch is now in mainline.  Is there anything else you need?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.  Two sets of questions left, one for Jeff and one [plus a little
>>>>>bit] for you...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeff, one test still fails: calling addprint.  I think this is mostly a
>>>>>GDB problem rather than GCC.  Before starting the program I see this:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let me take a look at it.  It is not failing in my all-patches-applied 
>>>>build. Perhaps in splitting the patches up, I screwed up and missed 
>>>>something.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, I figured out what piece I left out and have remade the patch.  I can't 
>>remember where we are on this regarding the workaround for gcc debug-info, 
>>but at least you will be able to run the test with the full functionality 
>>now. Please let me know what is needed next as I want to move this forward.
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> With Andrew's latest GCJ change, you can remove the bit I objected to for
> method names.  After that I'm happy with the patch.  A dwarf2read
> maintainer will need to have final review on the dwarf2read bits, so
> you may want to post a final patch and ping them.
>