Re: Note on BC and type assertions

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:
 > 
 > >> If it is a new _Jv_ function, then that is another fixed part of
 > >> the API.  This isn't a major thing, of course, but I wanted to make
 > >> sure it is explicit.
 > 
 > Andrew> That's true, indeed: we might have to use class.forName() for
 > Andrew> backwards compatiblity.  
 > 
 > How will we call Class.forName() before linking?

D'oh!  

 > 
 > Either we have to use the atable for all these calls (meaning, link
 > before verifying), or we have to use low-level libgcj APIs.  In the
 > latter case, we can't provide compatibility between newly compiled
 > code and old versions of libgcj, because we might have to add a new
 > function.

I'm convinced.

Andrew.