Ken Foskey a Ãcrit : > On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 15:16 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >>As long as OO.o limits itself to java features _already_ reimplemented >>by free vms everything is ok (and note that it was not the case for >>OO.o 2 features - people had to crash-write some gcj features so OO.o >>could stay available. Moreover the number of FOSS platforms that will >>be able to provide these features by OO.o 2 launch time will be fairly >>limited) > > > GCJ is undergoing a period of intense development as a result of OOo. > This is a good thing and should we use a feature that cannot be easily > coded around within OOo I expect the GCJ community will again help us to > code these features into their implementation. Often we push each > other. As a direct result in the OOo upgrades I am sure that GCJ will > be able to support many more Java applications without any change. > > I have heard Openoffice.org described as the gcc compiler test. The > number of breaks we find in gcc as a direct result of the size of our > code base is quite high. I expect this trend to continue with GCJ.
That's nice for gcc developpers not gcc/gcj users. This time OO.o chanced upon a major gcc release that included java work. This won't always be the case (moreover now that gcc 4 is out new gcj features won't happear in Linux distributions till the next release) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
