RE: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues

[Andrew Haley]

Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > Etienne Gagnon wrote:
 > > Mark Wielaard wrote:
 > > > I would like the vmdata field type then to be VMClass not Object.
 > > 
 > > I disagree, as it imposes a restriction on what vmData actually
 > > is.  The most obvious implementation of vmData is to be a byte[]
 > > instance holding the byte of a native pointer to an internal VM
 > > non-moveable data structure.
 > 
 > I'm glad to see we agree (although I don't think it's at all obvious
 > that it should be a byte[], not all VMs use native code).

Eeeh.  I can't imagine that either.  If there's a strong argument for
holding native pointer in a byte[] ?

Andrew.