Patch: FYI: Logger -vs- stack trace

[Andrew Haley]

Mark Wielaard writes:
 > 
 > On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
 > > Yes, I agree, we should parameterize this on the VM.
 > > This isn't exactly a good time to do it though.
 > 
 > I would have hoped you had designed it from the start with this in mind.

Blame me, not Tom!

 > > And, as you know, Classpath changed its stack trace implementation
 > > again, and we still haven't caught up with this.
 > 
 > Yeah, and I even proposed another way to deal with it (which was shot
 > down by Jeroen).  It would be good to see if we can discuss some of the
 > platform/runtime interface issues at Fosdem next weekend. Or at least
 > make a list of things that need work in this area. I have added it to
 > http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/Fosdem2005
 > 
 > > So, my thinking is, we should delay worrying about this until after
 > > 4.0 is branched.  Then we can look seriously at the proposal to use
 > > an unmodified Classpath with only relatively minor gcj-specific
 > > changes.
 > 
 > OK. If the goal is to do it at a certain point and it isn't postponed
 > indefinitely. Just want to make sure we are going to make real progress
 > towards more unification and less "little" divergences.

Certainly.  This little divergence is a workaround until gcj gets a
more efficient stack trace infrastructure.  I didn't have any
intention of committing it to Classpath, and I see no reason to export
this fix to any other VM.

Andrew.