From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29455 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2007 10:20:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 29441 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2007 10:20:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:20:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l2OAKaR2021622; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:20:37 -0400 Received: from zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (vpn-14-58.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.58]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l2OAKYT5007809; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:20:35 -0400 Received: from littlepinkcloud.COM (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l2OAKWAc018662; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:20:33 GMT Received: (from aph@localhost) by littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5/Submit) id l2OAKV3k018659; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:20:31 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17924.64367.748789.11073@zebedee.pink> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: Mark Wielaard Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Symbol visibility for gcj In-Reply-To: <1174693756.4301.4.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <17924.6636.434128.707456@zebedee.pink> <1174693756.4301.4.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.93.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg01606.txt.bz2 Mark Wielaard writes: > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:18 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I don't believe it should cause any problems, but it is possible that > > this will break some code that was using CNI to access private symbols > > inside a DSO. I don't think we care about that. > > For CNI we seem to treat package private members as visible. Is using > package private members from CNI still supported/will it be kept > supported, or should such usage be turned into java protected members? I haven't done anything about package private, so accessing package private members from outside a DSO will still work after this patch. Whether this *should* be supported, I don't know... Andrew.