Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200, Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
