Re: [PATCH] libjava: Add option to disable BC ABI in libgcj.

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

David Daney wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > David Daney wrote:
> > > Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > > > +@item --disable-libgcj-bc
> > > There really is nothing other than e-mail archives that could be cross
> > > referenced to provide deeper information about this option.
> >
> > See ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/summit/2004/GCJ%20New%20ABI.pdf
>
> While I could certainly reference this paper, I am not sure that 
> install.texi is the best place for such a reference.
>
> I was thinking that if someone wanted to know the gory details, they 
> could look up -findirect-dispatch.  I was trying to keep the install 
> documentation as small as possible while still describing what the new 
> option does.

I agree; I was just answering the "There really is nothing other" point.

> > >  If @option{--disable-libgcj-bc} is specified, libgcj is built without
> > > -these options.  This makes it impossible to override portions of
> > > -libgcj at runtime, but can make it easier to statically link to libgcj.
> > > +these options.  This allows the compile-time linker to resolve
> > > +dependencies when statically linking to libgcj.  However it makes it
> > > +impossible to override the effected portions of libgcj at run-time.
> >
> > Is that *a*ffected rather than *e*ffected?
> I don't think so, but I have a limited grasp of the English language.  I 
> will defer to others on which of 'affected' or 'effected' should be used 
> here.

OK, so take it from me: it's "affected".

Andrew.