Re: safety of GCJ-generated code

[Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
> In practice, I think gcj-generated code is safe (barring unknown
> bugs).  However, nobody has done an audit of libgcj.

Of course -- that's all I'm looking for, though -- assurance that if
you assume there are no bugs in libgcj, then it is known that
gcj-compiled code is "safe".


> Note that libgcj doesn't yet fully conform to Java's security model.
> We don't really support having a SecurityManager.  Also, we never
> throw StackOverflowError -- instead you might see a crash.  These two
> things have been on the to-do list for years.  Unfortunately,
> implementing them isn't trivial.

Interestingly, in my mucking around with the win32 stuff, I though I
saw something about a special "Stack Overflow Signal" on
win32... perhaps it might be as simple as just catching that signal
and then "throw new StackOverflowException()"...


  - a