OK, given nobody objected - should we do it before M5? As old verifier is never used and gc_cc have known problems and limitations (e.g. no support for uncompressed references), I think we should.
-- Alexey 2008/2/15, Pavel Rebriy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 - old verifier is moving to archive > > On 13/02/2008, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm ok for the verifier. Pavel R? I would suggest adding a link from > > Harmony web site to the original verifier referencing it as > > demonstrating an approach for java verification based on subroutine > > inlining. At the moment I wrote the code this was interesting for some > > researches and might attract them to our project. > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2008 4:09 PM, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > there is a number of bugs in gc_cc and not that many volunteers to fix > > them, > > > do we need to continue support it or we better move to archive? > > > > > > the same for original verifier: a number of bugs found in both > > > verifiers were fixed in the default one (verifier-3363) only, should > > > we move the original one into archive? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, > > > > Alexei > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Pavel Rebriy >
