On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'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.
Well, good point. However,
Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
that is the most convincing argument till now. :-)
bye :-)
Ashish Ranjan
India
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Benson wrote:
--- Ashish Ranjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that is the most convincing argument till now. :-)
+1 from an Ant PMC member. That logic is irrefutable.
:)
-Matt
What about cross-compilation/cross-building ? If harmony is to be
successful in its goal of wide
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:17:16PM +, Tim Ellison wrote:
There is a distinction to be drawn between the portability of the
'product' (i.e. the VM, class libaries, tools, etc.) that we are
building, and the portability of the toolsuite that is used to build it.
Hmm.
I'm not convinced of
