Re: Trouble with gcj 3.0.4 (BasicPermission.java)

[Mark Wielaard]

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