Re: Patch to enable libgcj.dll for MinGW

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > Terry Laurenzo wrote:
 > 
 > >>Could you explain the need for the gjavah changes more? Obviously, we
 > >>couldn't apply this patch as-is with that change. Perhaps decompiling
 > >>could be disabled conditionally for mingw/cygwin (maybe just by adding a
 > >>command-line argument), if it can't be fixed some other way.
 > >>    
 > >>
 > >See the thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2005-08/msg00064.html .  It
 > >is my opinion that the patch for gjavah is in the best interests of
 > >everyone for all platforms.

Why?  It's a simple optimization that works perfectly well on most
platforms.  We could have a target-specific diable for this.

Sure, it's not an important optimization, but I fail to see why
removing it is an improvement for all platforms.

 > >I will break it out and submit it separately if necessary.

 > OK, I'm inclined to agree with you. This feature contradicts binary
 > compatibility

I'm not sure why: for BC to work properly we'll need to have BC ways
to get at instance variables, so his will work too.

Andrew.