Re: Proposal for CNI/JNI problems

[Per Bothner]

Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This sounds like a good solution, and it's certainly better than the
> pure-C++ solution that I was working on.
> 
> Do you, or anyone else in the gcc/gcj camp, have time to work on such
> a feature?

I don't think I have time to actually do the work.  I can help out, in
pointing to where I think things need to be done.  Though the specific
case of changing the method header might be best to ask the gcc
mailing list, because I've heard rumours about plans to clean up the
code that does name mangling.  They might also be the best to suggest
the cleanest place to fix this.  (Adding support to re-writing
field references and method invocation is probably easier, because
it is more obvious what needs to be changed:  It basically needs to
be done when the tree nodes are generated.)
-- 
        --Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.bothner.com/~per/