Audrius Meskauskas wrote:
Only part of RMIC (direct bytecode generation) is really dependent from
ASM. That part which supports the source code generation is not
dependent, was a separate compiler in the past and can be easily
separated apart again. If we do not like ASM, this should make using the
alternative replacement easier, as only the bytecode generating part
needs to be rewritten. The classes being generated are also relatively
simple.
The direct bytecode generation is needed for performance and
compatibility reasons. If ASM is replaced with gnu.bytecode, then the
direct bytecode generation RMIC should be ported rather than removed.
FWIW, porting from ASM 1.x to ASM 2.x was not very involved, and the
update from 2.x to 3.x was even more trivial:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/cp-tools-discuss/2006-03/msg00000.html
I'm not sure trivial porting work between versions warrants an all-out
replacement.
Tom
