Patch for review: java.lang.Class - signers issue
Michael Koch
konqueror@gmx.de
Wed Dec 3 14:52:00 GMT 2003
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:34:46PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Michael Koch writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:17:28PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Michael Koch writes:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wrote the attached two patches to make it possible to compile
> > > > classpath with gcj again. I see these patches as start for a
> > > > discussion of this problem. These patches fix PR/12768 which is a
> > > > regression from 3.3.
> > >
> > > Tom wanted to call the field hack_signers. I don't know why. I would
> > > have thought _Jv_signers a better choice. However, this should be
> > > good enough for 3.4.
> >
> > Tom said that the renaming to hack_signers is only a temporary solution
> > for 3.4.
>
> I read that. I still don't know why hack_signers is a suitable name.
>
> > In fact someone should implement a better solution for this
> > problem. My fixes are just a workaround.
>
> OK. You'll need to post the compiler part to gcc-patches.
Will do when we have agreed on a name with Tom. ;-)
These patches were only written to start something. I never thought to
apply them as they are.
Michael
More information about the Java-patches
mailing list