On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:25:10PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote: > Well said. > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:55:40PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > On Tue August 10, 2004 13h14, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Roland Stigge wrote: > > > > > > > Hence, please don't do that, but compile it from the provided source, > > > always. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Joey > > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:25:10PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote: > derivitive forms is okay. Indeed, in the case of java, I don't think it > will matter 0.02 worth who compiles it. Java is reverse compilable, so > I think the bytecode will be the same either way. Can someone confirm > this? Then, it'd be nice if we could allow for upstream binaries to be I just confirmed that java bytecode _can_ vary. Two compilations with sun's compiler resulted in identical output, but the output was different than that produced by kaffe (which also produced two identical binaries). Justin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature