libgcj maintenance for 4.0.x branch

Mon Apr 18 17:56:00 GMT 2005

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Bryce McKinlay writes:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > 
> > >Tom Tromey writes:
> > > >
> > > > The proposed rule here is actually fairly conservative, perhaps overly
> > > > so.
> > >
> > >I think so. I wonder if the idea of never breaking the ABI is a bit
> > >too optimistic. We will try, but ...
> > >
> > > > Starting with 4.1 I would like to see a much less conservative
> > > > rule, namely that we only promise compatibility if you use
> > > > -findirect-dispatch.
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > 
> > I agree, but I also we need to make -findirect-dispatch the default for 
> > 4.1. Obviously some things need to happen before we can do this.
>> Source compilation, in particular. The fact that it doesn't work is
> certainly my fault, but I'm pretty sure I know how to fix it.
>
What is the strategy going to be for CNI?
We have a lot of CNI code that is not part of libgcj, It would be nice 
to have an easy migration to the BC-ABI.
David Daney.