From: Archie Cobbs (archie@whistle.com)
Date: Fri Oct 09 1998 - 18:25:24 EDT
FYI-
Seems like a lot of duplication of effort going on.
I wonder where kaffe vs. GCJ will be a year from now.
-Archie
> From tromey@cygnus.com Fri Oct 9 14:30:51 1998
> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
> Cc: java-discuss@cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: hello?
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com>
> Date: 09 Oct 1998 15:30:21 -0600
>
> >>>>> "Archie" == Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> writes:
>
> Archie> #1 What effort is being made to coordinate the development of
> Archie> kaffe, which is now at version 1.0b2, with GCJ, which is
> Archie> based around the 0.9.2 version of kaffe?
>
> Basically none.
>
> The compiler is independent of kaffe. We're writing a new class
> library and a new runtime.
>
> Archie> #2 Also, how important is modularity? Is GCJ going to be a
> Archie> monolithic JVM+compiler+debugger, or will it be possible for
> Archie> individual components (eg, the bytecode compiler, the
> Archie> memory/garbage collection component, the bytecode
> Archie> interpreter, the debugging interface, etc) to be worked on
> Archie> more-or-less independently?
>
> Some things can't be changed without understanding all 3 parts
> (compiler, debugger, runtime). For instance, object and class layout
> information is shared between all three.
>
> I doubt this will ever change. But then, I'd expect changes to these
> things to be relatively infrequent.
>
> The bulk of the class libraries are written in Java. System-dependent
> things (threads, file I/O) are fairly easy to port.
>
> GC is going to be another tricky area. We haven't really started work
> on the interesting stuff there yet. For now we're just using the
> Boehm conservative GC.
>
> There is no bytecode interpreter yet.
>
> Tom
___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:00 EDT