harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: JIT vs. WAT
Date Sat, 14 May 2005 00:51:27 GMT
>>>>> "Rodrigo" == Rodrigo Kumpera <kumpera@gmail.com> writes:

Rodrigo> It would be great to be GCJ compatible. Leveraging they effort with
Rodrigo> the binary ABI is a smart move and will promote more harmony instead
Rodrigo> of fragmentation between the java ahead-of-time systems.

See the "pluggable jit" thread on the classpath list; I sent a pointer
here earlier.  That has a list of the issues.

This is not trivial to accomplish.  It can be done, and with some not
unreasonable implementation decisions you can get fairly close fairly
easily.

That said, finishing the task is hard.  As a concrete example, ORP was
a fairly modular VM; the JITs in ORP did not hard-code knowledge about
thing like object layout but instead asked the VM component for this
information.  Likewise they did not know about GC.  Nevertheless it
proved hard to integrate this with gcj's output (I tried as a weekend
hack and gave up) due to mismatches between exception handling
implementations.  (A similar thing applies if you look at merging
kaffe and gcj, which both Dalibor and I have done.)

Rodrigo> But this raises a question, can Harmony use GCJ's binary ABI
Rodrigo> without been GPL?

I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.
I think it is no different from, say, replacing libgcc, which some
people do.

Tom

Mime
View raw message