Re: [Fwd: Re: libbsf-java]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:40:22PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
>
> From: Robert Lougher <rob.lougher@gmail.com>
> To: Wolfgang Baer <WBaer@gmx.de>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:08:49 +0000
> Subject: Re: libbsf-java
>
> Hi again,
>
> > The statement of better choice is here maybe a bit out of context. gij,
> > kaffe or sablevm are in the case of using the vm to BUILD a package for
> > DEBIAN the (normally) only choice. But that has nothing to do with
> > the quality or fitness for a given task of jamvm at all.
> >
> > That is just because of the debian policy which states that a package
> > must be buildable from source on all debian arches. As jamvm is
> > currently not available on all arches the consequence is that if
> > I use jamvm for BUILDING my package on i386 and a user / other developer
> > tries to build it from source on arches without jamvm it will fail and
> > therefore we get a release critical bug for it.
> >
>
> Yes, sorry, I understand this, and I know I'm going to get flamed for
> my reply now. I've seen rumours that Debian may drop support for the
> more "obscure" architectures. If this goes ahead I'll only have to do
> a version for AMD64 and IA64 :)
Dont believe any rumors and make no decisions based on them. It will be
no real *DROP* and we will still need to support them all.
> The difficulty (once 64-bit support is done) with porting JamVM to
> these architectures is the calling convention. Other VMs (e.g.
> SableVM) rely on libffi to do this portably. I prefer to instead use
> hand-coded routines for each architecture/platform (using assembler),
> to make calling JNI methods as efficient as possible -- JNI is
> notoriously inefficient as it is.
>
> Would you mind forwarding this to the list? I replied via gmane last
> time, as I'm not subscribed.
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Reply to: