Re: libbsf-java
Michael Koch <konqueror <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:39:19PM +0000, Robert Lougher wrote:
> > Michael Koch <konqueror <at> gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >
> > > Please don't use jamvm in general. It's only available on i386, powerpc
> > > and arm. It's not ported yet to other archs and Porting to 64-bit archs
> > > is hard due to the 32-bit ugliness in the upstream code.
> > >
> > > Better choices are gij, kaffe or sablevm.
> > >
--- rant excised ---
> >
>
> You totally misunderstood me. I only meant for building the package. We
> need predictable build system that uses the same software on each arch.
> Using one VM on some archs and another VM on other archs is no solution
> for the predictable build problem. At runtime users can use the VM
> whatever they want. I apologize if my original mail was so unclear. I
> use jamvm as my main VM on i386 and powerpc. I'm really happy with it.
>
I jumped to conclusions, which is inexcusable. I want jamvm to stand on its
technical merits and be used (or not) based on that. I don't push jamvm over
other VMs (or try not to) as it usually does the opposite (which I'm afraid
I've done here). Is it still your main VM :)
> > For the record, 64-bit support is the next thing on my TODO list -- I've
> > recently bought an AMD64 machine specifically to do this. I'm currently
> > finishing off a port to MacOS X which people have been asking for
> Thats reallyu great news.
Hopefully I'll get started in a couple of days. Moving to libffi (as an option
for unsupported architectures/platforms) will help future ports as well.
Rob.
>
> Michael
Reply to: