Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> >Frankly, that is all FUD.
>
> No, that's all facts.
Those two are not mutually exclusive.
> We where discussing a very specific situation here. Not GCJ in
> general. As you pointed out yourself (and that's what started this
> discussion), GCJ cannot be used for a trusted Java implementation.
The way I was reading your statements was that you concluded from this
sitation that GCJ should not be used at all for real work.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
