Final methods and the BC-ABI
Mon Nov 10 13:46:00 GMT 2003
Bryce McKinlay writes:
> On Nov 10, 2003, at 5:56 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
> > Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> >> Currently, the compiler does not generate vtable entries at all for
> >> final methods under the "current" ABI. This poses a problem in that
> >> --indirect-dispatch code will not be able to inter-operate with
> >> "current ABI" code. So, I propose that the compiler be changed to
> >> generate vtable entries for all final methods.
> > Is this the only (or primary) binary interoperability between the two
> > ABIs? If the long-term migrataion path is towards the binary
> > compatible ABI as the default, then I don't see why interoperability
> > matters.
> Right, the long-term goal is for the BC-ABI to be the default for
> systems with shared libraries. However while the BC-ABI is still in
> development, its very helpful to have interoperability between the two
> ABIs - this way we can build a binary with --indirect-dispatch and have
> it work against a libgcj built with the old ABI.
I don't want to rule out the possibility of building libgcj with
-Bsymbolic (so that all internal calls are direct where possible).
I'm not saying we *should* do this, but let's not rule out the
possibility before we've measured it.
More information about the Java