Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization

[Andrew Haley]

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > On 13 Apr 2004, Tom Tromey wrote:
 > > Bryce> I guess it doesn't matter right now, since libgcj itself isn't
 > > Bryce> built with the BC-ABI, but eventually, using Java locks here
 > > Bryce> could potentially lead to circularity problems.
 > >
 > > I suspect there will always be a few classes we don't compile with the
 > > BC ABI.  Object, maybe Class and String too.  This seems like an area
 > > we need to experiment with once the patches are in.
 > 
 > Yeah.  At one time I successfully compiled most of libgcj with
 > -fno-assume-compiled.  Except java.lang.Class; I don't remember why but it
 > did not work.

I guess I don't really agree with Tom about this.  I can see no
obvious reason why we should ever want to compile java.* using
indirect dispatch, and at least one strong efficiency reason why we
shouldn't.  If anyone knows how using indirect dispatch will make the
core libgcj work better, I'm upen to being persuaded.

Andrew.