Re: GCJ Native Proposal

To: Jerry Haltom <wasabi@larvalstage.net>
Cc: debian-java@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
From: Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:08:49 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20050503130849.GG29272@asterix.konqueror.de>
Mail-followup-to: Jerry Haltom <wasabi@larvalstage.net>, debian-java@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1115127952.9259.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
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> <1114896379.9135.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 20050503054358.GC29272@asterix.konqueror.de> <[🔎] 1115127952.9259.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> I think some of upstream agrees with me. I don't think calling it bcabi
> was ever officially intended.
> 
> I think mjw (who is that, Mark?) recommended against both -jbi and
> -bcabi and for -gcj. I'm on board with that if we can get other
> agreement.

When you re-read the list you will see that I was for -gcj from start.


Michael
-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCJ Native Proposal
  - From: Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>

References:
- Re: GCJ Native Proposal
  - From: Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>
- Re: GCJ Native Proposal
  - From: Jerry Haltom <wasabi@larvalstage.net>

Prev by Date: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
Next by Date: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
Previous by thread: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
Next by thread: Re: GCJ Native Proposal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread