CNI changes (Was: Binary Compatibility)

[Boehm, Hans]

Was the intent to have the compiler understand ref<java::lang::Object>,
or just to implement it in a C++ header?  Presumably the only thing that
breaks if you convert it to an ordinary pointer and pass it to a C library
routine is that you may lose null pointer checks?

It would also be nicer if the programmer didn't have to distinguish between
static_ref and ref.

Presumably this change would lose the benefit of any C++ templates that were
specialized for pointers?

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:aph@redhat.com]
>
> ...
> I guess we can use C++ static initializers to register static roots
> automatically?  So, it would just be
> 
> static_ref<java::lang::Object> foo;
> 
>  > Ideally in 3.5 we could come out with an ABI we could support well
>  > into the future.  I'm not sure whether that is completely possible,
>  > but we can try.
>