Re: naming conflicts in libgcj.a

[Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Megacz <gcj@lists.megacz.com> writes:

> Adam> What do you all think about renaming .o's upon addition to the .a
> Adam> archive? So Attributes.o would be added as "org.xml.sax.Attributes.o".

> Bryce's idea is to compile each package into a single large .o file.

Hrm, is there an advantage to one-package-per-.o instead of
one-class-per-.o with the naming scheme I mention above
("org.xml.sax.Attributes.o")?

I only mention this because putting each package into a .o will cause
a huge increase in the size of static binaries. I know that's not a
very high priority for the rest of you, though. The linker does a
crude amount of unused-section-garbage-collection at the file level
(if you never reference any symbols in a file, that file is excluded
from the output). GC at the section level only works on a few
platforms.

If I coded up the configure magic to make this a compile-time choice,
would it be likely to be accepted?

  - a