Re: libgcj maintenance for 4.0.x branch

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > 
 > >Tom Tromey writes:
 > > >
 > > > The proposed rule here is actually fairly conservative, perhaps overly
 > > > so.
 > >
 > >I think so.  I wonder if the idea of never breaking the ABI is a bit
 > >too optimistic.  We will try, but ...
 > >
 > > > Starting with 4.1 I would like to see a much less conservative
 > > > rule, namely that we only promise compatibility if you use
 > > > -findirect-dispatch.
 > >
 > >Yes.
 > 
 > I agree, but I also we need to make -findirect-dispatch the default for 
 > 4.1. Obviously some things need to happen before we can do this.

Source compilation, in particular.  The fact that it doesn't work is
certainly my fault, but I'm pretty sure I know how to fix it.

Andrew.