From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24372 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2010 13:05:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24361 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2010 13:05:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:05:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o06D5YO4018675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:05:34 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o06D5WcT011229; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:05:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4B448A9B.2060306@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libgcj 3.4.6 vs 4.x.x References: <898285d31001060337led8a851g4f20437fabe5d734@mail.gmail.com> <4B447C24.2010603@redhat.com> <17c6771e1001060459p6a584128ye5d9b8c3e11a7794@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17c6771e1001060459p6a584128ye5d9b8c3e11a7794@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On 01/06/2010 12:59 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2010/1/6 Andrew Haley : >> On 01/06/2010 11:37 AM, abhishek desai wrote: >>> Is there any documentation about the enhancements in gcj/libgcj >>> between versions 3.4.6 and gcc version 4.x.x ? I tried to compare the >>> changelog but it did not help much as the changelogs are of two >>> different versions. >> >> It's mostly just better and better coverage of the language. >> >> The key difference was gcj 4.3, which bumped the spec to 1.5, bringing >> annotations and templates. > > Templates? What are templates? No smiley? OK, generics then. Same thing. More or less... :-) Andrew, who has perhaps been writing C++ too much.