Richard Guenther wrote: > > What I do find strange is the restriction to explicitly Java VM bytecode > (not CIL or others).
I think I understand that one. Way back in time, when gcj was contributed by Cygnus, the FSF had to be convinced that Java VM bytecode couldn't be used to allow, e.g., an unfree C++ front-end to be bolted onto the gcc back-end. In truth it could be in theory , but the semantics of the Java VM mean that the result would not be any good. Andrew.
