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. Howe
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 wid
--- Ashish Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that is the most convincing argument till now. :-)
+1 from an Ant PMC member. That logic is irrefutable.
:)
-Matt
> bye :-)
> Ashish Ranjan
> India
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tim E
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 PROTE
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
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
