Re: libbsf-java
Robert Lougher <rob.lougher <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> 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.
> >
>
> And with such ringing endorsements as this I seriously wonder why I
spend most
> nights and weekends working on JamVM. Of course use the best VM
for the job,
> but OSS is such a thankless task at the best of times.
I think JamVM is excellent (and could use more developers, for all
its kick ass goodness as it is what many people use to hack on
GNU Classpath), and I'm sure
Michael agrees, too. There is a Debian specific requirement for
packaging,
that's the unspoken assertion there, which mandates the broad
architecture support.
That being said, porting a VM around is fun and pretty educational,
so if
people
want to see another nice fast and very lean VM on their architecture,
helping
out on porting JamVM is a very good idea. And Rob is as responsive and
kind as
a software maintainer ever gets, I think.
> 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 (sadly
only
> PPC32 because I don't have a G5 machine, but I do have a
mortgage).
Perhaps
> it's time to re-prioritise my evenings and look at the
pile of books
I never
> get time to read.
I'm running into the same problems with arch availability. I have
found HP's
TestDrive[1] to be quite helpful for porting Kaffe and keeping it in
shape on
various platforms. That and getting in touch with people who develop
on some
platform to get an account or two. I can send you more details if
you're
interested, Rob.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.testdrive.hp.com/
Reply to: