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: Note on BC and type assertions

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
Cc: GCJ Hackers <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 20 Oct 2004 12:32:21 -0600
Subject: Re: Note on BC and type assertions
References: <m3vfdc7y2l.fsf@localhost.localdomain><m34qkpz25c.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <4176AECE.7010608@redhat.com>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>> If we want to fully support the "gcj never fails" approach, then we
>> have to support cases like this.  For instance, it is an error to use
>> invokestatic on a non-static method.  This has to be reverified at
>> runtime.

Bryce> For the BC-ABI this is already verified when linking the
Bryce> otable/atable. There is no need for a separate assertion entry.

Yeah, duh on me.

Tom

References:
- Note on BC and type assertions
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Note on BC and type assertions
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Note on BC and type assertions
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

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