Re: Proposal for CNI/JNI problems

[Paul Fisher]

Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The first question is why?  What is the goal?

The goal is for Classpath to be the "standard" set of Java class
libraries for the majority of free JVMs.  Or at least, with a
reasonable amount of effort, a VM should be able to support Classpath.
Therefore, we need to support JNI in some form.

> (1) Is it OK to write Classpath in C++ rather than C?

Yes.

> (2) Is it OK for Classpath to depend on G++ extensions?

Yes.

> For example, let is call this option -femit-jni.

This sounds like a good solution, and it's certainly better than the
pure-C++ solution that I was working on.

Do you, or anyone else in the gcc/gcj camp, have time to work on such
a feature?