Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Benson
<gbenson(a)redhat.com> writes:
Gary> I agree. But in the same way we probably can't guarantee
Gary> compatibility between gcj-4.0.0-x and gcj-4.0.0-y.
We can always make mistakes... but we do try to guarantee that we
don't break compatibility in this case, even in the 4.0.x series.
Ah, ok. Is the BC-ABI immune to things like adding extra
members/methods to classes then?
So far, as far as I know, 4.1 can use any BC-compiled object
generated by 4.0. However, we don't want to really promise that we
won't break this in the future, as we might find some reason that we
can't keep this working.
Our hope is that starting with 4.1 we can guarantee compatibility.
If compatibility _is_ broken, will it fail gracefully?
Cheers,
Gary