harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Praher <jpra...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: timeframe for mid-level decissions
Date Sat, 21 May 2005 07:00:02 GMT
hi Tom,

Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>"Jakob" == Jakob Praher <jpraher@yahoo.de> writes:
> Jakob> do we want to build something that competes with sun j2se/mono on the
> Jakob> desktop side (gnome/redhat would be interested in that)
> I don't speak for Red Hat, but I can explain a little about why we
> ship gcj and not other VMs.  In addition to all our in house history
> with gcc and gcj, it basically boils down to 3 things:
> 1. Platform coverage.  The solution has to work on at least whatever
> platforms Fedora Core and RHEL work on.
> 2. Performance.  The result has to be reasonable competitive
> performance wise.  E.g., starting eclipse has to be reasonable both in
> time and space.
How are doing with gcj in this direction?
> 3. Debugging.  There has to be some debugger story.
> Harmony would have to excel on all of these before I would even
> consider, say, recommending it for FC.
These are important points.
I think that the 2 platforms should be interoperable. So probably many
installations will use gcj soon.(at least if its the default for fedora)
Especially for UI stuff it would be really interesting to get
interoperability right. IMHO harmony should be ably to understand the
gcj abi and the so cache, which is right now at the very heart of gcj.
Perhaps a second implementation of that would lead to more specification
  which would have positive results on gcj too.

-- Jakob

View raw message