Sat Mar 27 03:29:00 GMT 2004
Tom Tromey wrote:
> Andrew> I know that there is a somewhat decent verifier in libgcj, so
> Andrew> perhaps we could replace the gcj verifer with that one.
> FWIW, I started work on putting the libgcj verifier into gcj last
> year. I haven't had time to finish yet, and in the meantime I made
> some major changes to the libgcj verifier (fixing the subroutine
> bugs), so my changes won't apply cleanly any more.
> Anyway, I had a mostly-working prototype. I was able to get the
> verifier into gcc, bridge the type differences, and have it actually
> verify code. gcc still crashed since I hadn't yet wrote the code to
> let the libgcj verifier tell gcc about type maps. Parts of this were
> pretty ugly, so some polishing would also be required...
Can you please elaborate a bit more? I mean, wouldn't this
create licensing issues? The configury will also get
a little weird I guess.
It is a Good Thing, IMHO, but I'm just confused by
how you did it, especially after I remember us being
reticent to even use libiberty in libgcj and by the
order in which I see different parts of the GCC tree being
configured and built (libiberty, front-ends, libraries).
If neither of these is an issue, I wholeheartedly
vote for you to update and integrate your patches.
Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT hotmail DOT com
Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.tripod.com/
More information about the Java