Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Benson <gbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
