eliminate gcjh?

sf sf@b-i-t.de
Tue Mar 9 10:30:00 GMT 2004

Christian Stuellenberg wrote:
>>>>>>"AM" == Adam Megacz <adam@megacz.com> writes:
>     AM> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>     >> For instance, 1.5 has covariant methods,
>     AM> Is it covariant at the bytecode level, or just at the language
>     AM> level?  If it's the former, doesn't this break compatability?
> If I remind right, all this is "only" at language level, since they
> did not want to change the VM (to stay compatible e.g.).  1.5 does
> only translation of some syntactic sugar to other valid java code on
> the fly I think...  some real functional featueres (while still
> staying compatible to most VM's back to 1.3/2) you can accomplish
> using http://nice.sf.net/.

Covariance has always existed at bytecode level. See also 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9861 .


More information about the Java mailing list