RE: gij as JRE 5

[Jeroen Frijters]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> We're losing context because of heavy snipping.
> 
> The question of 1.5 bytecode came up in the context of gcj.

Oh, sorry, I missed that. I thought it was a general Classpath point.

> The "ldc
> class" is a Good Thing in that context.  Also, I can see no reason not
> to recognize the new magic number.

There is actually a good reason. If the 1.5 classes are missing, the
chances that a 1.5 compiled class will run are slim. This is what Andrew
John Hughes was trying to address with his proposal to implement the 1.5
classes as much as possible (using 1.4 sources). I haven't thought about
it deeply, but on the surface that seems like it could be a good idea.

Regards,
Jeroen