I guess it would be even more of a surprise, then. :-)
On 12/12/07 1:36 PM, "Andrzej Bialecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Using gcj successfully would be a bit of a surprise. > > GCJ 4.2 does NOT work.
I guess it would be even more of a surprise, then. :-)
On 12/12/07 1:36 PM, "Andrzej Bialecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Using gcj successfully would be a bit of a surprise. > > GCJ 4.2 does NOT work.