This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: invokespecial on abstract method

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>, Christian Stuellenberg <gcj at stuellenberg dot de>, <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:55:22 +0100
Subject: Re: invokespecial on abstract method
References: <F5B6B707-F535-11D7-8390-003065F97F7C@mckinlay.net.nz><Pine.LNX.4.44.0310022345150.16923-100000@ops2.one-point.com>

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > 
 > ant.jar is a fine example.  No user can reasonably expect to have all the
 > external classes referenced by ant.jar on their system.  Some of them are
 > proprietary and not freely available.
 > 
 > > In order to compile and run these .jars, GCJ needs
 > > to be able to defer the linkage until actual use, as per the JLS spec -
 > > hence one of the reasons for the BC-ABI.
 > 
 > I know this has been discussed before but I'll chime in once again to say
 > I can't agree more.

Well, I think there's a fallacy here.  It's not as if the gcj
developers have to decide which model to support -- we can support
both.

Andrew.

References:
- Re: invokespecial on abstract method
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: invokespecial on abstract method
  - From: Jeff Sturm

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]