This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: Correction to last message, GC status
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- Subject: RE: Correction to last message, GC status
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: "'tromey at redhat dot com'" <tromey at redhat dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Boehm, Hans wrote:
> Should I check in the standalone configure.in etc under a different name?
> Or should we just leave it out until we finish unifying the two? (The
> library name issue seems to make that harder than necessary. I still wonder
> whether a renaming wouldn't be better.)
I've been meaning to ask something related...
What is the advantage of building libgcjgc as a shared lib? Or libzgcj
for that matter? We don't have pluggable GC, and libzgcj isn't any
different from libz.so (or is it?).
In my local tree, I tried building boehm-gc as a convenience library.
It seemed to work fine. Why not make that the default? That would make
the choice of library name moot, mostly...
Jeff