This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)

To: martin dot kahlert at infineon dot com
Subject: Re: The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)
From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Date: 28 Sep 2001 09:13:00 -0600
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010927153258.A16126@keksy.muc.infineon.com> <3BB3B06F.60006@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <20010928164954.A6958@keksy.muc.infineon.com>
Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Kahlert <martin.kahlert@infineon.com> writes:

Martin> Now it seems to work better than the TOWER compiler.
Martin> This will be no good news for them ;-)

Cool news for us though!
In what ways do you think it is better than TOWER?
In what ways is gcj worse?
Have you compared performance at all?

Just curious,
Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)
  - From: Martin Kahlert

References:
- The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)
  - From: Martin Kahlert
- Re: The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: The old _Jv_InitClass problem is still present in 3.1 (patch included)
  - From: Martin Kahlert

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]