Re: GCJ integration

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Tim Wilkinson (tim@transvirtual.com)
Date: Tue Feb 16 1999 - 17:50:15 EST


Godmar Back wrote:

> >
> > > For practical reasons, I'm for changing Kaffe rather than egcs.
> >
> > Hmmm - kind of contra-productive. There is one reason to use WAT: getting
> > optimized code with a minimum amount of load/compile time. Any load-time
>
> True. However, these are only initial, one-time costs, if
> I understand it right. And they're far smaller than jitting a method.
> There is the memory cost.

Maybe its a smaller cost - but it's still a cost which can be avoided by changing
GCJ.

>
>
> > conversion is against that. And if egcs does change its structures, again, we
> > end up with work on both sides (analyzing egcs changes *and* modifying kaffe
> > adaption functions). More work for less results.
> >

A very good point - they made a number of change since I last looked into this.

>
>
> Besides, I just don't see how you would want to accomplish this in
> practice. egcs is very much in flux, Cygnus doesn't include Kaffe patches,
> do you want to branch off egcs? Viel Spass damit.
>
> - Godmar

 We certainly don't want to branch off EGCS - but it's possibly to provide the
patches and even the pre-patches sources of EGCS.

Changing the internals of Kaffe is major work - and changing for a moving target
when someone else controls it isn't my idea of fun.

Tim

--
  Tim Wilkinson                         Tel:     +1 510 704 1660
  Transvirtual Technologies, Inc.,      Fax:     +1 510 704 1893
  Berkeley, CA, USA.                    Email:   tim@transvirtual.com


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:58:09 EDT