Re: [Fwd: [cp-patches] [RFC, Concept proposal]: Easing "target" dependency]

2005-12-03 Thread Guilhem Lavaux
Hi Mark, Mark Wielaard wrote: Hi Guilhem, On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 20:31 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote: So I am proposing to keep the basic skeleton of the target layer but put the real code not in macro but in real C functions. That way we will be able to add autoconf macros without bothering

Re: [Fwd: [cp-patches] [RFC, Concept proposal]: Easing "target" dependency]

2005-12-02 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi Guilhem, > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 20:31 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote: > > So I am proposing to keep the > > basic skeleton of the target layer but put the real code not in macro > > but in real C functions. That way we will be able to add autoconf macros > > without bothering the java interfac

Re: [Fwd: [cp-patches] [RFC, Concept proposal]: Easing "target" dependency]

2005-11-30 Thread Dalibor Topic
Guilhem Lavaux wrote: Hi, As I got no answer on classpath-patches I send this email to this list. Regards, Guilhem. Subject: [cp-patches] [RFC,Concept proposal]: Easing "target" dependency From: Guilhem Lavaux <[EMAIL P

[Fwd: [cp-patches] [RFC, Concept proposal]: Easing "target" dependency]

2005-11-30 Thread Guilhem Lavaux
Hi, As I got no answer on classpath-patches I send this email to this list. Regards, Guilhem. --- Begin Message --- Hi, I would like to propose a code split to split the java interface from accessing syscalls in File IO (and generally for all native IO). Some VM may want (like us in kaffe)