Re: Classpath / GCJ java.io Merge

[Brian Jones]

Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:

> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron M Renn <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Aaron> For #1, I have no idea what has been decided regarding native code.
> Aaron> Last I checked, we still had a JNI/CNI deadlock going on.
> 
> I'm resigned to the fact that we'll need dual implementations of
> certain native code.  The Gtk AWT peers I imported into libgcj as-is,
> using JNI, but that is a special case.
> 
> This does hamper merging since it is a lot of effort to rewrite the
> JNI code.  I've never had time, or really much motivation.
> I think there's also some question of which approach is preferable.

I have noticed that for a good deal of CNI code it is quite straight
forward to turn it into C or C++ based JNI instead.  There was a Perl
script that someone purported to do some of this a while ago.  I'm
tempted to play with it a bit.

-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>