------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02 07:54 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the > foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed? > > I'm now running nightly builds of gcj on the Nice compiler testsuite (1250 > testcases). There are currently 11 failures, and 4 seem to be instances of > this > verifier bug. So fixing this would be a great improvement.
See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00568.html which makes even the non-indirect-dispatch case use the new shiny verifier. It definitely fixes this PR and a whole lot of other verifier bugs. Can you test it with your application too? (Thanks in advance for doing it.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537
