This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: Symbol visibility for gcj

From: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:55:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Symbol visibility for gcj
References: <17924.6636.434128.707456@zebedee.pink> <1174693756.4301.4.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>

Mark Wielaard wrote:

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:18 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't believe it should cause any problems, but it is possible that
this will break some code that was using CNI to access private symbols
inside a DSO.  I don't think we care about that.


For CNI we seem to treat package private members as visible. Is using
package private members from CNI still supported/will it be kept
supported, or should such usage be turned into java protected members?

There is no C++ equivalent to java's package private IIRC, so there seems to be no alternative to making them public in CNI.

Trying to access private members from CNI raises C++ protection errors, so it should be safe to make them invisible as you would get a compile time error if you tried to use them.

David Daney

References:
- Symbol visibility for gcj
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Symbol visibility for gcj
  - From: Mark Wielaard

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