harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graeme Johnson <Graeme_John...@ca.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Building choices (was: Re: Code contribution to harmony)
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:50:58 GMT
Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote on 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:

> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
> > On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>In the end we decided to go with a 'conventional' native code tool set
> >>for the native source, and 'conventional' Java code tools for the Java
> >>source.  People just felt more comfortable with that.
> >>
> >>Do you think we are missing out on something ;-) ?
> > 
> > 
> > Well, I can see a few potential issues with such "mixed" approach:
> > - In order to contribute, people would have to learn both building
> > technologies - Ant and make, someone may give up.
> I don't see a great advantage to asking people to learn 'cpptask' rather
> than 'make'.  I would suggest that many more C programmers are familiar
> with 'make' already, so we are not asking them to learn something new.
> [snip]

'make' also simplifies the bootstrapping issue.  When you are doing the 
initial port of the VM to a new platform, and you don't have java 
running yet, having your build instructions encoded in Ant is problematic.

Relying on the availability of a previous java port to get the Harmony 
VM building seems like a questionable porting story.  'make' of one flavor 

or another is pretty much universally available, and seems like the 
pragmatic choice for building C code. 

Graeme Johnson
J9 VM Team, IBM Canada.
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message