Hi Guilhem, > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 20:31 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote: > > So I am proposing to keep the > > basic skeleton of the target layer but put the real code not in macro > > but in real C functions. That way we will be able to add autoconf macros > > without bothering the java interface and if some persons still want to > > use the TARGET layer it is possible by simply using the macro inside the > > C functions.
Everything that replaces the macros with real functions has my vote. I have had to debug my way through the macros and it was a pain. > > So here is a patch which shows what I want to do. An idealistic > > situation would be to put all these functions which are using syscalls > > into a libjavasyscalls which will be implemented by VM writers (and of > > course we will propose a default implementation). My preference would be for one cp_io.c, cp_net.c file per core package. > > This is not the definite patch. So don't complain about missing > > ChangeLog and so on ... I ask whether people agree on using that concept. This makes the source much more readable for me so I am happy. The only thing I would like to see changed is to explicitly start all functions with cp_ ,to make clear that these symbols are part of the GNU Classpath library (we have the same naming scheme with the gtk+ awt peer native implementation). Thanks, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list Classpath@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
