Re: about non-compatible optimization (was: Re: patch to bring java vtables closer to g++ abi conformance)

["Tuomas Leikola" <tuomas dot leikola at digia dot com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryce McKinlay" <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
To: "Tuomas Leikola" <tuomas.leikola@digia.com>
Cc: <java@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:41 AM
Subject: Re: about non-compatible optimization (was: Re: patch to bring java
vtables closer to g++ abi conformance)


> Not yet. But that is certainly a goal. One day I hope that libgcj will
> be common (and stable) as glibc, so you can distribute your small
> dynamically linked command line java utilities (or your huge java gui
> app) with no worries.
>
> That means that your binaries automatically gain the benefits of
> bugfixes and improvements when you upgrade your libgcj. And it means
> that all the code in libgcj.so gets shared automatically in memory
> between different applications.
>

murphy says:

"your binaries automatically gain the bugs and degradations when it is
downloaded and installed by joe user with gcc 2.96"

:)

> if (foo instanceof Bar)
>   bar = (Bar) foo;
>
> Currently gcj will make libgcj calls for both the instanceof and the
> cast. But by inlining them the generic CSE pass will be able to tell
> that the second check is redundant and remove it completely.
>

god. the next you are going to say that final java.lang.String is not
getting inlined all over?