libgcj maintenance for 4.0.x branch

[Bryce McKinlay]

Andrew Haley wrote:

>Tom Tromey writes:
> >
> > The proposed rule here is actually fairly conservative, perhaps overly
> > so.
>
>I think so.  I wonder if the idea of never breaking the ABI is a bit
>too optimistic.  We will try, but ...
>
> > Starting with 4.1 I would like to see a much less conservative
> > rule, namely that we only promise compatibility if you use
> > -findirect-dispatch.
>
>Yes.
>  
>

I agree, but I also we need to make -findirect-dispatch the default for 
4.1. Obviously some things need to happen before we can do this.

Bryce