This is the mail archive of the
java-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: V3 ABI
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: V3 ABI
- From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco <apbianco at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:59:02 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>, java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <OFD15F4B7E.B69F46AA-ON882569A7.007B49F4@diversifiedsoftware.com><877l5lt2b9.fsf@creche.cygnus.com><3A27205A.46C9F39E@albatross.co.nz><87itp4spvl.fsf@creche.cygnus.com><14896.10287.530632.892870@deliverance.cygnus.com><87itovagwu.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
- Reply-To: apbianco at cygnus dot com
Tom Tromey writes:
> >> Another would be to add dummy virtual functions to Object whose
> >> slots would then be abused to hold the extra info.
>
> Alex> Would we only change java/lang/Object.h?
> We would also have to change gcj to know about the dummy virtual
> functions in Object.
I was under the impression that the definition for Object.java for gcj
wouldn't change. gcj generated vtable for Object would be created as
usual, along with the dummy entries. So only changing
java/lang/Object.h would just force the C++ compiler to do what we
want. Am I missing something?
./A