Hi, On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 20:11, Tom Tromey wrote: > > For problems like this, where the fix is something we wouldn't write > from scratch and is just a workaround for a current compiler problem, > I would prefer that we only have the fix in this particular Classpath > release. So the idea would be that we make a release branch and then > add the workarounds there. My idea here is that in the long term we'd > prefer the existing code, as it is "more natural", and perhaps by the > time the next Classpath release comes around we won't have to worry > about this particular compiler any more. What do you think?
I think a branch is a little over the top for this release. We have some other workarounds in the current tree for compiler problems. e.g. java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java: // FIXME workaround for bug in gcj 3.0.x java/util/TreeMap.java: // FIXME gcj cannot handle this. Bug java/4695 And I think some compilers versions might be much longer around then we hope (just look at all the different versions of jikes that people are still using). So I will just commit the workaround with the words FIXME, gcj, workaround and/or bug. The workaround is to simply use the fully qualified classname in this case and that doesn't matter for other compiler (versions). Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
