--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:04 ---
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this bug has been fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr 2005-03-02
13:42 ---
Subject: Re: Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr
I just finished running my testsuite with gcj/new_verifier. The results are
very good:
6 fixes (only 5 failures instead of 11 previously)
0 regre
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
13:09 ---
> OK, I patched my tree, I'll report the results (fixes and regressions)
> after the next build.
Thanks.
> In your list message, you mention only one fix in the gcc testsuite,
> pr13107. Does this mean
--- Additional Comments From daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr 2005-03-02
10:13 ---
Subject: Re: Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00568.html
>
>which makes even the non-indirect-dispatch case use the new
>shiny verifier.
>
>It
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
07:54 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
> foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?
>
> I'm now running nightly builds of gcj on the
--- Additional Comments From bonniot at users dot sf dot net 2005-03-02
00:11 ---
What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?
I'm now running nightly builds of gcj on the Nice compiler testsuite (1250
te
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
11:59 ---
In that case, we should either make -findirect-dispatch the default
or try to fix this bug. Users will otherwise unnecessarily be bitten
by such old verifier bugs. I'm willing to try hunting this particular
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10 11:33
---
It's extremely unlikely that anyone will fix bugs in the old verifier.
However, it is still used for the non- indirect dispatch case. I don't know if
it's possible to use the new verifier for that: probably no
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
11:26 ---
Now that the BC-ABI work has been merged, the testcase no longer
gives an error when compiled with "-findirect-dispatch".
However, it ICEs when compiled without!
Relevant info:
Program received signal SIG
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-21 13:40 ---
We're merging the new verifier on the gcj-abi-2-dev-branch.
Once that is done, this bug should be fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 14:16
---
New error message on the mainline:
A.java: In class `A':
A.java: In method `A.main(java.lang.String[])':
A.java:8: error: stack underflow
--
What|Removed |Added
-
11 matches
Mail list logo
