Stephen Crawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried Stuart Ballard's suggestion of putting all JNI calls EXCEPT > for the Kissme implemented ones int GC regions. It works.
Good. > With that in mind, the attached classpath.diffs.gz files give my > revised proposal for changes to jni.h in Classpath. Basicly, the > changes allow the following: > > 1 They define placeholders for the JDK 1.4 extensions to JNI Why placeholders? Why not the actual methods themselves? > 2 They allow JVM implementations to #include jni.h to avoid > mismatched function tables. This has to do with the methodID/fieldID changes? > 3 They allow JVM implementations to define custom extensions > to the function table. Why would a JVM choose to expose functionality in this way? For example could there be a kissme.h instead to accomplish the same thing? Brian -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.haphazard.org/~cbj/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
