Tim Ellison wrote:
Enrico Migliore wrote:
Archie, Geir and Stefano,
could you please take a look at the following assertion and correct it
if it's wrong:
It's worth to remember, that the goal of porting JCHEVM to Cygwin/Windows,
is to enable us, and the people interested, to have a development
environment on Windows,
in order to start working on the APR.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'in order to start working on the APR'?
I think I understand - right now, he can't compile.
Cygwin/WIndows will be good, as will the toolchain we are currently
using for the classlibrary, known as WTHWOTM "Whatever The Heck Was On
Tim's Machine"
In principle, after adapting jchevm to the APR, jchevm will be buildable
with:
1. GCC native - build on Linux an executable for Linux
2. GCC cross native - build on Linux an executable for Windows
(without Cygwin)
3. MSVC native - build on Windows an executable for Windows
The same thing applies to the Harmony Classlib
The class library native code uses the Harmony portlib to access much of
the OS-specific code covered in APR. Rather than rewrite those natives,
and loose the additional characteristics of the portlib, it would make
more sense to implement the portlib on APR if that were desirable.
I can't begin to express how strongly I support this.
Use APR as a portability assist - we have the portlib interface that
serves the needs of the VM, and you can implement it quickly
(hopefully?) using APR. If not, then we have a good opportunity to
offer enhancements to APR.
geir
