Re: Implementation Q

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>> Anyway, yes, not supporting rtti makes it hard to link gcj code to
>> existing C++ libraries which rely on rtti.  Fixing gcj is the best
>> approach.  If you need it in a timely way, as always, you'll probably
>> have to write it yourself...

Colin> One could, I suppose, make typeinfo for a Java class be the
Colin> same as that for void, or create some other opaque thing -
Colin> JavaClass or something.

Colin> How does that strike you, as an initial approximation?

Of course I'd prefer to see a full implementation.
A dummy implementation just papers over the problem... presumably code
that relies on rtti expects it to mean something.

Tom