RE: gij as JRE 5

[Andrew Haley]

Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > >  > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > >  > > Make 1.5 bytecode a reqiurement for the 1.0 branch.
 > >  > 
 > >  > I don't understand what you mean by this. Supporting 1.5
 > >  > bytecode in the VM is trivial, but we don't have any 1.5
 > >  > source compilers yet, do we?
 > > 
 > > Sorry, I thought it was clear.  Tom said "Here are the minimal changes
 > > required to support 1.5 bytecode", and that's what I was referring to.
 > 
 > I don't understand how the two are related. If we make supporting
 > 1.5 bytecode a requirement for GNU Classpath 1.0, what would that
 > buy us without actually having a 1.5 capable compiler and using the
 > 1.5 features in the Classpath sources?

We're losing context because of heavy snipping.

The question of 1.5 bytecode came up in the context of gcj.  The "ldc
class" is a Good Thing in that context.  Also, I can see no reason not
to recognize the new magic number.

It's not desperately important.  However, it's so easy to do that we
probably could have done it in the time spent having this discussion.
If there's a downside, then I'm not aware of it.

Andrew.