Hi,
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 01:17, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 00:02, David P Grove wrote:
> > I submitted a patch (#1686) for this about two weeks ago. The
> > change to java.lang.String is actually fairly important for Jikes RVM
>
> I already looked at them and they look
Hi Dave,
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 00:02, David P Grove wrote:
> I submitted a patch (#1686) for this about two weeks ago. The
> change to java.lang.String is actually fairly important for Jikes RVM
I already looked at them and they look OK, but I wanted to test them out
with at least one ot
Hi,
I
submitted a patch (#1686) for this about two weeks ago. The change
to java.lang.String is actually fairly important for Jikes RVM (our implementation
of String.intern is buggy on classpath until this goes in). Should
I resubmit as two patches to make it easier for someone to apply
Hi,
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:02, David P Grove wrote:
> One way I could proceed would be to add VMString, VMFloat, and
> VMDouble classes and move the bodies of the relevant methods to these new
> classes. This seems to be consistent with the way other classes are
> structured. If thi
David P Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to make some minor changes to java.lang.String,
> java.lang.Float, and java.lang.Double to make then work with Jikes RVM
> slightly better. The desired effect of the changes are:
> (1) move implementation of java.lang
5 matches
Mail list logo
