Bryce> I propose adding a libjava.bytecode test suite which will contain
Bryce> binary .class files for such tests. Obviously for licensing reasons we
Bryce> (in general) can't just go adding bytecode from random failing .jar
Bryce> files in there, but in cases where a reproducable test case exists, we
Bryce> could place its bytecode there. The source code would be included too,
Bryce> but only for reference purposes - only the bytecode version would
Bryce> actually be used/compiled.
Bryce> Anyone have any concerns about this?
What if instead of source code we checked in the jasmin-syntax
assembler source (as well as the class files)? Then we could
conceivably make minor tweaks and regenerate if needed. This would
also make it simpler to test variations on a theme. I'm just
thinking of a situation where we need to make some change (dunno,
change a method name or something) but we can't because no existing
compiler will generate the same weird bytecode.