This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: CNI changes (Was: Binary Compatibility)
- From: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- To: "'Andrew Haley'" <aph at redhat dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:57:00 -0700
- Subject: RE: CNI changes (Was: Binary Compatibility)
Was the intent to have the compiler understand ref<java::lang::Object>,
or just to implement it in a C++ header? Presumably the only thing that
breaks if you convert it to an ordinary pointer and pass it to a C library
routine is that you may lose null pointer checks?
It would also be nicer if the programmer didn't have to distinguish between
static_ref and ref.
Presumably this change would lose the benefit of any C++ templates that were
specialized for pointers?
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:aph@redhat.com]
>
> ...
> I guess we can use C++ static initializers to register static roots
> automatically? So, it would just be
>
> static_ref<java::lang::Object> foo;
>
> > Ideally in 3.5 we could come out with an ABI we could support well
> > into the future. I'm not sure whether that is completely possible,
> > but we can try.
>