harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
Date Fri, 20 May 2005 10:30:38 GMT

On May 19, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Renaud BECHADE wrote:
>
>>>> That being said...doing so in a portable and platform  
>>>> independent way is
>>>> actually HARDER in Java than in C (and by C I mean
>>>> C/C++/Objective-C...whatever).  Read the Sable paper...  you'll  
>>>> see what
>>>> I mean :-)
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Why should it be so? I guess the platform dependent code emission  
>> code is
>> err ... not platform independent anyway. Also, if the reference  
>> platform is
>> for instance LLVM, or some other, off the shelf, low-level  
>> intermediate
>> representation, then there is no more platform dependence to take  
>> care of at
>> the JVM level (I suppose)...
>>
>
> Andy is right: "writing in Java" *above* the JVM interface means  
> you are
> creating bytecode and all the portability efforts were taken care for
> you by the JVM makers. "writing in Java" *below* the JVM interface  
> means
> that you have to do, at some point, some native code transformations
> yourselfs, for every single different CPU architecture.
>
> Writing a JVM in a compilable higher language means that the compiler
> will do all that for you.
>
> So, interestingly enough, writing a JVM in java could allow java
> developers to work on it more easily (java programmers tend to be
> allergic to C and friends), but would require a lot more work,
> portability wise.
>


I think that's a function of whether or not you ever worked in C and C 
++.  I spent a lot of time with C and C++ and have no problem using  
it when required, although it hasn't been required in what I do for a  
long time.


> It's also true that this kind of portability is perfectly  
> parallelizable
> and it's CPU-dependent, not OS-dependent (well, really it's
> (CPU,OS)-dependent, but the two are almost orthogonal axis) and there
> are not so many CPU architectures remaining out there in the server  
> market.
>
> This might hit us on the mobile/embedded market, though and hit us
> pretty hard.
>
> This is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
> and one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
>
>  1) the goal of making things modular enough to allow to swap things
> around and allow parallel development
>
>  2) create some internal (and friendly!) competition on speed and
> compliance :-)
>
>  3) attract two different pools of talents
>
>  4) allow compensation (easier to experiment in java than in C, harder
> to port java than C)
>
> Thoughts?

I'm certainly open to having two, but don't think that it should be  
in any way a goal.  If there's interest, and people work on it, I  
think that's great - it's good for portability testing.  I'd ask that  
we require working together on the modularity.

I know that in the past, that Jikes was able to clean some production  
VMs in microbenchmarks, but as I understand it, there's now a large  
performance gap.  One of our goals is equivalent performance.

geir

>
> -- 
> Stefano.
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message