RFC: BC-ABI and Old Verifier

[Ranjit Mathew]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:14:06 +0000, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ranjit Mathew writes:
>  >
>  >   How about making either -findirect-dispatch the default
>  > *or* resurrecting the old verifier for the non-BC-ABI
>  > case?
> 
> That's what we do.

???

BTW, why *isn't* BC-ABI the default? Even if
can't quite guarantee the ABI to remain constant,
it seems to resolve *quite* a few issues...


>  > The current situation would cause users unnecessary pain
>  > (e.g. PR 5537) so it should be resolved either one way
>  > or the other,  or we risk having to listen to lots of
>  > user complaints when GCC 4.0 is released.
>  >
>  > With the BC-ABI merge, a lot of the old verifier was
>  > disabled/crippled (e.g. subroutine verification):
>  >
>  > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/java/verify.c.diff?r1=1.66&r2=1.67&only_with_tag=MAIN
>  >
>  > If we can't quite make BC-ABI the default yet, we
>  > should revert verify.c to revision 1.65 (just before
>  > the BC-ABI merge).
> 
> Pre-approved.  There's no reason not to revert the old verifier to its
> pre-merge state; it was only a temporary kludge.

Ok. But were they all just kludges or were there
genuine bug-fixes too? In particular, do you remember
why you made the set of changes in the latter half
of the diff above?

Thanks,
Ranjit.

-- 
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.    Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/