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

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>>>> "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.

Okay.  In that case, we can just drop it.

Andrew.