Re: Calls to built-in functions are not Binary Compatible

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> One other possibility is perhaps to give these builtins entry names
Andrew> that don't change whenever we change gcj's mangling.  But we don't
Andrew> intend to changes gcj's mangling ever again, anyway.  So is this worth
Andrew> doing at all?

I think one question here is, what kind of binary compatibility are
we really promising?

We can't promise binary compatibility in the general case.  And, I
don't think it is worth trying.

Instead I think we should only be promising that code compiled
-findirect-dispatch with the same compiler will follow the JLS binary
compatibility rules, and that beyond this we will only make a best
effort not to break things between GCC major releases.  I don't see
how we can do more, really.  For instance if calling conventions
change then we're just doomed.

In any case I think this particular patch is too big since it also
affects cases which won't result in an actual call, e.g. the
intBitsToFloat thing, which turns into a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.

Tom