hOn 12 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> True - but Gcj *does* supply a VM in the traditional (java) sense.
> I guess not enough people know this.
Indeed, I am one of them.
> Gcj aims to be a *complete* Java solution.
As I say, I had no idea. I thought gcj was purely a compiler project,
which mea
Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler,
The purpose is to be a Java implementation which is *based* on
ahead-of-time-compilation - but it does include a VM.
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because g
hOn 12 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> True - but Gcj *does* supply a VM in the traditional (java) sense.
> I guess not enough people know this.
Indeed, I am one of them.
> Gcj aims to be a *complete* Java solution.
As I say, I had no idea. I thought gcj was purely a compiler project,
which me
Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler,
The purpose is to be a Java implementation which is *based* on
ahead-of-time-compilation - but it does include a VM.
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because
* Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to build a VM, having KJC as
> an aside. Did I miss something?
Because gcj can compile directly to native machine code, gcj can compet
* Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to build a VM, having KJC as
> an aside. Did I miss something?
Because gcj can compile directly to native machine code, gcj can compe
6 matches
Mail list logo
