CNI changes (Was: Binary Compatibility)

Mon Aug 4 18:57:00 GMT 2003

Was the intent to have the compiler understand ref<java::lang::Object>,
or just to implement it in a C++ header? Presumably the only thing that
breaks if you convert it to an ordinary pointer and pass it to a C library
routine is that you may lose null pointer checks?
It would also be nicer if the programmer didn't have to distinguish between
static_ref and ref.
Presumably this change would lose the benefit of any C++ templates that were
specialized for pointers?
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:aph@redhat.com]
>> ...
> I guess we can use C++ static initializers to register static roots
> automatically? So, it would just be
>> static_ref<java::lang::Object> foo;
>> > Ideally in 3.5 we could come out with an ABI we could support well
> > into the future. I'm not sure whether that is completely possible,
> > but we can try.
>