Re: GCJ Native Proposal
- To: debian-java@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
- From: Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:24:32 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87zmveaskv.fsf@oz.fapse.ulg.ac.be>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-java@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <1114897140.32416.123.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200")
- References: <1110654804.9890.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050315131458.GG5016@papacharly.konqueror.de> <4236E6F9.1070107@alltc.com> <87ekcsyr8r.fsf@oz.fapse.ulg.ac.be> <20050430192858.GI11599@asterix.konqueror.de> <1114897140.32416.123.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200,
Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are
> somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to
> know what is special about the package. In a future release the bcabi
> will also be the default abi used by gcj. And in cases where backwards
> (and forwards) compatability and seamless interoperability between
> native and interpreted byte code is wanted you will need to use this
> -findirect-dispatch technique always. And no, I am not proposing to use
> -indirect-dispatch as suggix :)
>
> IMHO the best suffix would be to just use -gcj for the natively compiled
> packages. That at least shows the user what the difference is and why
> the -gcj package is faster and less resource intensive. Because it was
> created using GCJ.
and -gcj is not technical?! ;-)
Why not just drop the suffix?
libant
libservlet2.4
and so on...
Maybe it's a stupid question, but can a C or C++ program call those
natively compiled libraries? Don't we need to generate headers? (now
everybody is aware that I don't know nothing about C and C++! :-D)
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Reply to: