Re: RFC: Moving native code in java.net into architecture dependant files

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com> writes:

Andrew> The main exception to this is trivial stuff like
Andrew> #ifdef WIN32
Andrew>        foo ();
Andrew> #endif
Andrew> which isn't worth factoring out.

I factored some of these out yesterday :-).  But it depends on the
case.  I didn't change jni.cc since it looked more complicated to do
so -- it isn't a simple matter of a define in the platform header.

Andrew> I wonder if we definitely need enable_java_net.  I don't see any good
Andrew> reason to omit net support on a target that doesn't require
Andrew> such
Andrew> omission.

My impression is that there are people out there who do this.  Whether
or not it is worth supporting is a different question.  I don't know
why people would configure this way (e.g., if it is a size thing then
that really can't be very effective anyway...).

We definitely will continue to need a net-less port, for newlib
targets at least.

Tom