Robert Schuster writes: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > >Robert Schuster writes: > > > > > > >There is actually a good reason. If the 1.5 classes are missing, the > > > >chances that a 1.5 compiled class will run are slim. This is what Andrew > > > >John Hughes was trying to address with his proposal to implement the 1.5 > > > >classes as much as possible (using 1.4 sources). I haven't thought about > > > >it deeply, but on the surface that seems like it could be a good idea. > > > > > > > Actually I have doubts at this point. Javac 1.5/5 compiles all its > > > "-target 1.5" stuff with the help of java.lang.StringBuilder > > > instead of java.lang.StringBuffer. This little difference makes all code > > > that would normally run in a 1.4 environment unusable. > > > The funny thing is that StringBuilder (and attached interfaces > > > Appendable, CharSequence) make no use of 1.5 features. > > > > > > So this is my vote for adding support for 1.5 bytecode addition as well > > > as 'source 1.5'-independent (helper) classes. > > > >Sounds good: it looks to me like we can do StringBuilder trivially by > >removing all the instances of "synchronized" from StringBuffer. We > >already have methods like ensureCapacity_unsynchronized in the > >implementation. > > > Tom Tromey has submitted a StringBuilder implementation in classpath's > generics branch.
My, he is busy. ;-) > >The question does arise, however, about when we should start to > >generate calls to StringBuilder in gcj. Do we have to wait for the > >rest of 1.5? This is a hard one: no problem if we're generating > >bytecode for the locally installed gij, but otherwise... > > > Unfortunately I am not used to gcj but from a short glimpse to its > man-page I can see that it does not support something comparable to > javac's -source and -target > switch. How does gcj treat the assert() statement? -fenable-assertions > Its an 1.4-introduced feature that has IMHO a similar nature like > the (subset of) 1.5-additions we are currently discussing. A > '-source/target'-like switch could help gcj to determine what kind > of source and binary level features are allowed. It could do, but supporting such a matrix is something of a potential minefield. We've always used -f<feature>. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
