This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3] Patch ping
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: rmathew at hotmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 22 Jan 2003 13:28:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.3] Patch ping
- References: <87bs29nj25.fsf@fleche.redhat.com><jm1y35doc0.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:
Geoff> Please complete the unchecked items in the checklist:
Ranjit, could you do these things?
Geoff> [ ] The patch either fixes an existing testcase, or adds a new
Geoff> testcase.
This is a curious requirement in this case. I've been waiting to
check in Ranjit's changes to libgcj until this patch is approved. As
long as the compiler and the runtime are consistent, JNI code will
work if it is compiled against our runtime. If I check in his runtime
changes first (which are correct and bring us in line with the JNI
ABI), then no JNI code will work. Doing this would let us satisfy the
"fix an existing testcase" requirement.
I think in this case we ought to recognize that the situation is
unusual. Ranjit, please run your before- and after- tests against a
libgcj with your stdcall patch applied.
Tom