Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler)

gah@u.washington.edu (G. Herrmannsfeldt)
22 Feb 1997 23:11:38 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[9 earlier articles]
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) apalanis@students.uwf.edu (1997-02-03)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) robison@kai.com (Arch Robison) (1997-02-03)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) bothner@cygnus.com (1997-02-07)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) haahr@netcom.com (1997-02-07)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) markt@harlequin.co.uk (1997-02-07)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) robison@kai.com (Arch Robison) (1997-02-11)
Re: Why Virtual Machines? (was: C++ -> Java VM compiler) gah@u.washington.edu (1997-02-22)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: gah@u.washington.edu (G. Herrmannsfeldt)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Feb 1997 23:11:38 -0500
Organization: University of Washington
References: <01bbfca0$a284a6f0$041b6682@tecel> 97-01-120 97-01-139 97-01-225 97-02-016 97-02-036
Keywords: architecture, Java

haahr@netcom.com (Paul Haahr) writes:
>Significantly, type information is completely preserved. I'd cite
>this as the fundamental reason why Java decompilers are quite as
>plentiful as they are and C decompilers are relatively uncommon
>beasts.


This isn't completely true, and, apparently this is visible in
decompilation.


There is no boolean type: boolean variables are type int, and boolean
arrays of type byte. Presumably they decompile to those types.


-- glen
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.