From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26245 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2005 07:54:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26222 invoked by uid 48); 2 Mar 2005 07:54:38 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050302075438.26220.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20020130042601.5537.daniel.bonniot@inria.fr> References: <20020130042601.5537.daniel.bonniot@inria.fr> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-q1/txt/msg00560.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- 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 Nice compiler testsuite (1250 > testcases). There are currently 11 failures, and 4 seem to be instances of this > verifier bug. So fixing this would be a great improvement. See: 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 definitely fixes this PR and a whole lot of other verifier bugs. Can you test it with your application too? (Thanks in advance for doing it.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537