harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [build] Post-build relocation for Harmony
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:53:25 GMT
Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007 9:21 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see, that makes sense.  So perhaps we should not bother with the
>> current basing option in makefiles, and just leave it all to the
>> deployment stage?
> We might just leave them alone and rebase again on the deployment stage.
> That's the minumim change which allows to use large heaps.

I'm more interested in doing the 'right thing' rather than the 'minimum
change', but I won't argue strongly for it.

>> Looking at the doc for editbin, I agree that /largeaddressaware looks
>> like a good option too.  How about /bind ?  Given we just rebased the
>> DLLs it may help with start-up times?
> That makes sense for the sake of modularity, sure, but that's not the
> post-build action since we don't know what libraries will be used
> exactly. So we need to prepare for the worst case and relocate most of
> them.

Are we talking about the same thing.  If I read /bind properly it
preloads the addresses of entry points assuming that the DLLs do not
conflict -- which we hope will be true after rebasing.

>> I may tweak that patch a bit so it doesn't try to rebase the DLLs in the
>> bin/default directory if the VM isn't DRLVM.  Not sure what the effect
>> would be on the IBM VME (at least, some of those files don't appear in
>> the IBM/BEA VM).
> Uhm... I thought my patch only touches DRLVM-specific build code. Are
> the same scripts used for Harmony/J9 building? If yes, sure, we can
> ensure compatibility with other VMs as well.

Yes, I saw the patch's "Index: build/make/build.xml" and jumped to the
wrong conclusion.  You are right that it should only affect the DRLVM
build this way.


View raw message