Note on BC and type assertions
Andrew Haley
aph@redhat.com
Sat Oct 16 09:49:00 GMT 2004
Bryce McKinlay writes:
>
> This way, if and when we discovered additional corner cases that
> required an assertion to be emitted, we can just add a new
> assertion type code and add support for that code to the
> runtime. Backwards compatibility (new code on older runtime) could
> even be possible by having the runtime ignore assertion types that
> it doesn't understand.
Well, it doesn't get you functional backwards compatibility to an
older runtime, which is what I'm trying to do.
> This would, IMO, provide a simpler ABI between the compiler and
> runtime, and probably also reduce executable size. The runtime is
> free to implement the assertions any way it wants without being
> constrained by what the compiler emitted.
I think that's true with either scheme: there's no reason why we can't
emit an assertion that contains a single call to a function, passing a
table. That gives us the possibility to add more checking later, at
almost no cost.
Andrew.
More information about the Java
mailing list