This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Workflow and Compiling an Application
Hi all,
that's my first post to the mailing list.
I'm not involved in gcj development though I'm
very interested in gcj.
I can't speak for the gcj development team.
Am Sam, 2001-11-17 um 01.54 schrieb Michael J McGonagle:
<snip>
> One of my goals for my project is to make sure that it is 100% Java
> Compatible. In making sure that this is possible, I want to make sure
> that I can use various compilers. I have the default 'javac', as well as
> 'jikes' and 'gcj'.
>
The best method is IMHO to use default javac. gcj is currently in
development and one can't test "Java compatibility" with it.
> My question, is there any difference in compile times with 'gcj'
> depending on the format of the input (*.java vs. *.class). I figure my
> work/compile flow would be as follows:
>
> 1. Compile using 'jikes' to *.class
> (from here I can test the code with 'java' or 'kaffe')
> 2. Compile using 'gcl' to binary
>
Sounds ok.
>
> Does this sound similar to anyone else's workflow, I would be interested
> in hearing any comments about your tests with other methods of compiling
> (ie from *.java vs *.class).
My workflow is to compile and run apps in suns (or ibms) jdk. If I have
non-gui code I want to compile I try it with gcj.
Currently only the jdks give me the ability to write platform
independent and java compatible code.
I would contribute to awt and swing if there was a clear decision (and a
roadmap) how to implement it.
Greetings to all the gcj developers out there.
Keep up the good work!
Christian Peter (charly)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike