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: -fnew-verifier

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, GCJ Hackers <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:13:57 +0000
Subject: Re: -fnew-verifier
References: <m3653oqm32.fsf@localhost.localdomain><41ABB0DB.5010603@redhat.com>

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > Tom Tromey wrote:
 > 
 > >I think we should just get rid of -fnew-verifier and instead have that
 > >be implied by -findirect-dispatch.  First, -findirect-dispatch
 > >actually already requires this, and second, that way we don't have to
 > >document it (and then keep it around for years even after it is
 > >useless).
 > 
 > Agreed. Also, if we arn't going to make --indirect-dispatch the default 
 > for 4.0, then we should at least make it the default on the HEAD as soon 
 > as 4.0 branches.
 > 
 > Are there any strong against making it the default, anyway? Performance? 
 > Bugs?

Yeah, many bugs, but almost all confined to the source compiler.  I'm
looking at them now.  The new ABI is an *experimental preview* for
4.0, I think.

Andrew.

References:
- -fnew-verifier
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: -fnew-verifier
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

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