From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 16 1999 - 18:07:17 EST
>
> Godmar,
>
> They deal with first active use just like kaffe does (what a suprise!) so this is
> not a problem. Actually the current GCJ doesn't even have a 'state' flag (my guess
> it that they hold it in the VM somewhere else because it prevents them ROMing a
> class data if they have to change the state).
I see.
>
> Re: stubs
> You really think this is a good idea? Rather than changing GCJ (which will
> probably change with each release anyway) we have to generate a C++ stub for all
> native code in any compiled Java code - that certainly complicates the generation
> of pre-compiled libraries. Actually you don't need to generate a stub but just
> need to stop the linker error (so defining the symbols in some way would be fine -
> or generating a stub which does nothing would be fine).
I don't know all the trade-offs that would be involved in stubs, but
on the hassle scale from 1-10 (10 being unbearable) we could push stubs
down to a 5 or 6 by providing appropriate wrapper scripts that invoke
egcs and the stub generator in a row.
It's just an idea I wanted to throw into the ring, anyway.
- Godmar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:58:09 EDT