[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities
From: |
Tom Tromey |
Subject: |
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities |
Date: |
27 Feb 2003 17:52:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
>>>>> "Nic" == Nic Ferrier <address@hidden> writes:
Julian> Funny, it really turned out the exact opposite for
Julian> me. Hmm. Well, gcj's compile-time behaviour is not very
Julian> predictable, but at least the run-time behaviour of the stuff
Julian> produced by it is...
Nic> Tom, is this true? I've been told in the not too distant past that
Nic> compiling from source was more reliable than from bytecode (by Per I
Nic> think).
Compiling from source gives better performance. However, the source
front end has bugs (it is worse in some areas, like member classes).
The bytecode front end is less buggy, but since it still doesn't do
"function-as-a-tree" compilation, there are missed optimization
opportunities.
Tom
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, (continued)
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Julian Scheid, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Nic Ferrier, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Julian Scheid, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Nic Ferrier, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Julian Scheid, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Tom Tromey, 2003/02/26
- [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Julian Scheid, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Tom Tromey, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Julian Scheid, 2003/02/26
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, Nic Ferrier, 2003/02/27
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities,
Tom Tromey <=
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: LibxmlJ formalities, David Brownell, 2003/02/25