Re: [RFA]: Java Inferior Call Take 2

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 04:16:01PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>  > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  >  > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:49:30PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>  >  > > Ping.
>  >  > 
>  >  > I was waiting for Andrew to try fixing up gcj so that we could avoid
>  >  > the method name problem.  Andrew, are you going to have time to do
>  >  > that, or should we pursue the hack for now after all?  I'd much rather
>  >  > it be fixed.
>  > 
>  > Sorry Daniel, I've been away.  You are right: it should be fixed in
>  > gcc.  I will do this as soon as I get stuff sorted out.
> 
> Okay, I've made a patch but I'm not sure it's what you want.
> 
> This is a snippet from a typical file:
> 
>         .long   0x9ca                                         |         .long   0x851
>         .byte   0x1                                                     .byte   0x1
>         .string "java.lang.Class.forName(java.lang.String)"   |         .string "forName"
>         .byte   0x3                                                     .byte   0x3
> 
> Is that what you want?  I've only made the change for method names;
> field names are as before.

That's what I had in mind.  What do field names look like?  I thought
they were already in the shortened form.

If you want to send me the patch to try, I'll put it together with the
Java inferior call support and see if everything lines up right.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz