On 6/23/06, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23 June 2006 at 17:10, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rana Dasgupta wrote: > > On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>Pavel Pervov wrote: > >> >> Geir, > >> >> > >> >> What's the first thing we do? > >> >> I'd suggest switching the build to 1.5. > >> >> > >> >> The rest will come shortly :) > >> > >> >Now that's a plan! :) > > > > > > Hi Geir, > > Actually what Pavel says makes sense. Not sure what plan we need. We could > > do it either way. We can make some changes to the class structure, loader, > > and the jit/interpreter, and submit a couple of patches. It is not the > > "huge" patch that you have mentioned .. 7-8 files or so. Or we can switch > > the build first. This will break drlvm for a short time, and we can > > submit a > > couple of bug fixes to get it going again. This way, we will just add the > > minimum needed for removing the compiler hack. Whatever way you think makes > > sense. > > However, you started this thread with saying "no patch over the wall" > > and making this "learning exercise about DRLVM". Where are you going with > > this? Do you want to actually enumerate/discuss which source files need to > > change and in what way, on this thread so that more people can participate? > > > > Marginally confused :-) > > Rana > > Just for the record, my goal was to avoid 'moving the goalposts' for > drlvm to integrate with the classlib and run the tests, apps, etc. > > If consensus here is that moving to 5.0 (and thereby delaying that goal) > is more desirable then I'm happy to go along with it, though I'm keen to > get the entire end-to-end story working soonest. > > Regards, > Tim My feeling at the moment is that although drlvm and classlib are working together[0], it is evident[1] that things are not really integrated. I would prefer to see "real integration" before we break[0] things by moving to 5.0.
I agree the integration doesn't look perfect. On the other hand, improving integration and moving to 5.0 could be quite independent. Integration issues seem to be mostly related to the building / packaging, while 5.0 support would require adding / changing a code.
As Geir pointed out recently, we are not just a Class library project, so perhaps a change of focus is warranted? Perhaps if we can agree a set of prerequisite goals (involving our JVMs) for moving to 5.0, we can ... err ... encourage this change of focus? My prerequisite goals would include things like: 1) Fix the (reasonable) 'hacks' that help us get this far with drlvm integration - e.g. the static libhyprt.a for instance.[2]
It seems libhyprt is needed by VMI module to implement GetPortLibrary function. I guess static hyprt library is still needed for Windows (this is why it was added) while it isn't needed on Linux. The dependency on hyprt could be handled more gracefully with <select os="XXX"> tags.
2) Implement enough of the classlibadapter kernel classes such that JCHEVM will run 'ant rebuild' in classlib[3]. We have some difficult problems (thread attach) but there is also a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of missing or incomplete methods. 3) Get drlvm loading with the Harmony launcher from Classlib so we can have both drlvm and IBM VME around for testing. I think this is important because it will make it easier for people to test with either JVM.
Do we want every VM, capable of working with Harmony classlib, be started with the Harmony launcher? It's probably could be too restrictive and may require additional work for adopting other VM's for classlib. However, I completely agree that the non-standard name breaks other tools and scripts. Wouldn't it be sufficient just to rename ij->java?
4) Change the drlvm build so that its deploy tree layout has no classlib files in it. So we can do ... 5) Create the top-level build that can combine the trimmed drlvm deploy tree and the classlib deploy tree to produce a working jdk. (In much the same way that we currently combine the classlib and IBM VME.) 6) Pull out shared dependencies to top-level so we only need one copy.
It looks like most of these issues are relating to the building files. Geir, would you be willing to work on that, or, someone else could try? Thanks, Andrey.
At the moment, I think moving to 5.0 would increase the divide between the JVMs and Classlib. In the meantime there is still plenty of work to do for those that, for whatever reasons, don't find these tasks exciting enough - for instance, the missing java.lang.Character/java.lang.Math methods[4]. Regards, Mark. [0] Thanks Geir! [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-651 [2] This isn't a criticism; I think these hacks can be justified. [3] I tried this the other day. It got to the second (non-comment) line of the first ant script before crashing because ClassLoader.getResources() isn't implemented yet. [4] http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk15-harmony.html#pkg_java_lang --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Andrey Chernyshev Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
