Re: [kaffe] Enable --with-debug for ARM builds

Hi Jukka, --- Jukka Santala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a rather simplistic patch to get --with-debug > configure parameter > to work with ARM JIT builds. Looking at the Kaffe CE > source, it seems like > the _dbg_vm_jit_code variable is newer alternative, > so possibly we should > be mov

Re: [kaffe] -O4 jit3 problem

> > I wrote: > > Tim wrote: > > > What about using local labels in END_EXCEPTION_HANDLING? > > > > Ah! That's probably exactly what is needed. I was hoping there was > > some GCC way of handling this. > > Seems to work, too! I had a little problem with: static inline void vmExcept_setJNIFra

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

I didn't see FAQ.embedded up on kaffe.org, so forgive me if this is already there, but you might want to mention Kaffe OS (Kaffe on OSKit) as an alternative to running on a "full" OS for embedded applications. Derek -- ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Alexander Popov wrote: > Would you mind if I quote you directly in the FAQ... Not at all, that's what I'm commenting for. Feel free to rephrase where neccessary, too. > Yes, the demand for X is quite annoying (especially on PDAs running > Qtopia )... > I'd be really glad to

[kaffe] Enable --with-debug for ARM builds

Here's a rather simplistic patch to get --with-debug configure parameter to work with ARM JIT builds. Looking at the Kaffe CE source, it seems like the _dbg_vm_jit_code variable is newer alternative, so possibly we should be moving to using that instead, merging with PocketLinux. However, for this

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

Jukka Santala wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Alexander Popov wrote: > >>Ok. Do you think I should remove the Configuring section? > > > Nah, probably not. Just with the detail it already has, it's probably > worth mentioning that best solution may be to link dynamically to re-used, > non-perfor

Re: [kaffe] Hashtable.get() bug

Hi Dilabor, > Well, a small self contained example that triggers the > bug would be much more helpful, really. For example, > you are not using props in a thread safe way, so > another thread could set it to null after you have > assured yourself that it is not null, but before you > get to call

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Alexander Popov wrote: > Ok. Do you think I should remove the Configuring section? Nah, probably not. Just with the detail it already has, it's probably worth mentioning that best solution may be to link dynamically to re-used, non-performance critical libraries, and staticall

Re: [kaffe] Hashtable.get() bug

Hi alexander, --- Alexander Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Opppsss, sorry... > > I was pretty busy - I guess I should have had my > time on the example > code - sorry. > I still pretend that the bug is there though. I'll > write a good example. > > ...just to illustrate the problem, see th

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

Jukka Santala wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Alexander Popov wrote: > > >>1. You must decide if you will use a static or a dynamically linked >>VM. In most cases a shared VM is the preferable scenario - it's smaller > > > Most people working on embedded stuff probably know their situation

Re: [kaffe] Placing kaffe on embedded devices

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Alexander Popov wrote: > 1. You must decide if you will use a static or a dynamically linked > VM. In most cases a shared VM is the preferable scenario - it's smaller Most people working on embedded stuff probably know their situation better, but on a guess I'd say that m