RE: gij as JRE 5

[Andrew Haley]

Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > 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.

In which case it'll fail because of unresolved classes.  I don't see
how refusing to recognize the new format will help.

 > 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.

It could be.

Andrew.