[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core real-time and device driver guy, I am rather
skeptical
that this is anything else but a conflict in
requirements, runtime
performance in execution speed versus interpretability and/or
compilability of
a! we dont need any mess right up now so leave it now ;)
On 5/22/05, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
People, as you probably already understand, being focused on web stuff,
Apache attracted pools of people (ourselves mentors included) that know
very very
great. thanks. Lets make sure we keep it up to date
geir
On May 23, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Nick Lothian wrote:
[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core real-time and device driver guy, I am rather
skeptical
that this is anything else but a conflict in
Is there a link from the main page?
-- dims
On 5/23/05, Nick Lothian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core real-time and device driver guy, I am rather
skeptical
that this is anything else but a conflict in
compiler and JVM.
Dan Lydick
[Original Message]
From: Nick Lothian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: 5/22/05 7:20:54 PM
Subject: FAQ (was RE: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM
http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/)
=20
[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks
yes :)
I checked that too..
geir
On May 23, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Is there a link from the main page?
-- dims
On 5/23/05, Nick Lothian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core real-time and device driver
(BSubject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 22, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
＞ No. Why would we do this?
People tend to be lazy. If they have a bundle with one VM, then
they will
use that VM, for m
On May 23, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
It would be great if people would bundle Harmony with stuff (and
plan
to do it w/ Geronimo when that time comes), bit it's way out of
scope
for *this* project to get into the business of reditributing
software
from outside of the ASF.
al Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:49 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 23, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:10 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
＞I don't understand this argument. If our J2SE implementation is
＞feature-comparable to the one
with it in the
first time.
Regards,
RB
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:49 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://
jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 23, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Renaud
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:33 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 23, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
＞I don't understand this argument. If our J2SE imple
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
People, as you probably already understand, being focused on web stuff,
Apache attracted pools of people (ourselves mentors included) that know
very very little about compilers and VMs.
Speak for yourself - I've written compilers and VMs, though not for Java
and quite
[Original Message]
From: Steve Blackburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: 5/20/05 2:03:30 AM
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM
http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
... snip ...
Last Friday, I made the following proposal:
http://mail
On May 22, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Dan Lydick wrote:
We don't have to eat the whole pie at once, and we don't have
to. How about the general proposal as shown here and in
recent postings of:
- FIRST: A basic JVM, written in C/C++, by some combination
of contribution, new development, and
On May 22, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Dan Lydick wrote:
What I hear in this proposal for multiple VM's is the potential for
1. munge-and-squash to create a new VM based on the
best qualities of the seeded contributions.
If we have seeded contributions. I've been proposing people look at
Dan Lydick wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. There are no Java virtual machines period that are presently
practical to run high volume production code.
I meant Java virtual machines written in Java... sorry
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core
[snip]
Does anyone have any benchmarks on such designs?
As a hard-core real-time and device driver guy, I am rather
skeptical
that this is anything else but a conflict in requirements, runtime
performance in execution speed versus interpretability and/or
compilability of the runtime
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:58 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
As a purely idle bystander and armchair speculator, I'm with Steve on this
one. It seems the community has roughly aggregated into VM
n Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:38 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
On May 19, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
Another point that is unrel
Tom Tromey wrote:
Does anybody know if GCC allows such a thing?
It already exists -- you're describing gcj.
on another email, he wrote:
You can use gcj-as-jit right now, today, if you want, though it has
some scalability problems.
o, ok [I should really do my homework]
People, as you
On May 21, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Steve Blackburn wrote:
Mark Brooks wrote:
Investigation is fine enough, but let's face facts. This is a
HUGE project.
We do NOT have the time or manpower to write two VMs as part of a
project where we need a working J2SE 5 implementation, from
basement
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If the mentors of this project were to write a JVM themselves, it would
be a piece of crap :-)
Don't sell everyone so short... :)
Prove me wrong! :-)
--
Stefano.
On May 21, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If the mentors of this project were to write a JVM themselves,
it would
be a piece of crap :-)
Don't sell everyone so short... :)
Prove me
On 5/19/05, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
and one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
Well, I suspect if we design the interfaces correctly, we could do the
above with one JVM instead of two. Two
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 5/19/05, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
and one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
Well, I suspect if we design the interfaces correctly, we could do the
above with one JVM
Last Friday, I made the following proposal:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev
/200505.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the context of the current discussion I'd like to
re-advocate that proposal. It is consistent with what
Stefano has suggested.
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part of a runtime written in Java has to be interpreted, or compiled
before executed. Throughput is sacrificed when interpreted and
interactivity is sacrificed when compiled.
The runtime itself can't realistically be interpreted because it would
just be too slow. So
jikesRVM have 3 compilers, baseline, quick and opt.
baseline is meant to have jit times comparable to an interpreter preparation
time[1].
quick is a replacement for baseline on PPC, as the generated code is too
slow, and aim to only get low hanging fruits. It's a linear, one pass
compiles, so
El vie, 20-05-2005 a las 11:26 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi:
(...)
Of course, such a runtime will have
another interpreter or a baseline compiler (written in C/C++?) and
Java-written JIT can be debugged exhaustively. But such a reflective
nature certainly makee debugging harder.
Even if
Santiago Gala wrote:
El vie, 20-05-2005 a las 11:26 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi:
(...)
Of course, such a runtime will have
another interpreter or a baseline compiler (written in C/C++?) and
Java-written JIT can be debugged exhaustively. But such a reflective
nature certainly makee debugging
On 5/20/05, Steve Blackburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I envisage that harmony is *seeded* with two VMs. Under the seeding
model both seeds are destined to die (that is, their *cores* die) once
new core/s evolve. I view this as a good thing.
Given a world with three different Harmony VMs, I
As a purely idle bystander and armchair speculator, I'm with Steve on this one. It seems the community has roughly aggregated into
VM in Java and VM in C/C++ camps. Both camps appear to have large and robust support and actual working
implementations behind them. In the former I see JikesRVM
I disagree with the permise of what you are saying. Let me say the
wrong thing
1. There are no open source virtual machines that are presently
practical to run high volume production code (yes I know you all run
kaffe whatever for XYZ and love it to death, but I mean non-entusiasts
would run
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with the permise of what you are saying. Let me say the
wrong thing
1. There are no open source virtual machines that are presently
practical to run high volume production code (yes I know you all run
kaffe whatever for XYZ and love it to death, but I mean
On May 19, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
Another point that is unrelated, but what about the packaging of
the VM?
Do we plan to release it with say Eclipse + Server (JSF + IDE +
object DB or
O/R mapping + HSQL DB)? (IMHO this is good way to legitimate it)
No. Why would we do this?
Hi, I just wanted to say that a free opensource VM with do a lot of
harmonyzation in Java world. This is more or les the missing pice. There
are some free java VMs but they will never be used in critical by the
companys to run there applications if it won't be backed-up by a big
(and well
hi all.. you know i think we all should work to bring the spirit of harmoney
to the open source movement in general... for example as a web developer i
read about a new php mvc-based framework every couple of days with really
nothing new to introduce to the scene so if all *similiar* open
My point was that instead of attempting to disenfranchise one or the other camp
of its notions, allow two parallel veins of investigation according each his
own inclination. I _wholeheartedly_ agree that work can begin *now* on any
single or multiple (hopefully no more than two, according to
Stefano == Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JCVM has a nice feature in this area in that it converts bytecode to C
and then lets GCC compile that.
Stefano Hmmm, interesting... I wonder if we could hook directly into the
Stefano compiler intermediate representation instead of having
It would be great if everyone would agree on a single architecture and
plan, and it would be great if everyone, despite their personal
preference, committed to working on that single VM; but since that has
not (yet?) happened, there are people willing to work, there are several
robust
Mark Brooks wrote:
Investigation is fine enough, but let's face facts. This is a HUGE
project.
We do NOT have the time or manpower to write two VMs as part of a
project where we need a working J2SE 5 implementation, from basement
to TV aerial so to speak, and we need it in time to be
That being said...doing so in a portable and platform independent way is
actually HARDER in Java than in C (and by C I mean
C/C++/Objective-C...whatever). Read the Sable paper... you'll see what I
mean :-)
-Andy
I'll certainly read the paper, but I find it difficult to believe that it is
[Original Message]
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: 5/19/05 4:29:23 PM
Subject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM
http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
Renaud BECHADE wrote:
That being said...doing so in a portable and platform
Why should it be so? I guess the platform dependent code
emission code
is err ... not platform independent anyway. Also, if the reference
platform is for instance LLVM, or some other, off the
shelf, low-level
intermediate representation, then there is no more platform
＞This is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
＞and one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
＞
＞ 1) the goal of making things modular enough to allow to swap things
＞around and allow parallel development
＞
＞ 2) create
The problem of Java written JVM/JIT isn't one of performance. You can
theoretically achieve the same performance (although I'm not 100%
convinced, I'm partially there)
It is reasonable to model the performance of a Java runtime in several
aspects, especially throughput and interactivity
I think jikesrvm can be executed from another JVM, this should make
debugging easy.
On 5/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem of Java written JVM/JIT isn't one of performance. You can
theoretically achieve the same performance (although I'm not 100%
convinced,
Nick Lothian wrote:
Why should it be so? I guess the platform dependent code
emission code
is err ... not platform independent anyway. Also, if the reference
platform is for instance LLVM, or some other, off the
shelf, low-level
intermediate representation, then there is no more platform
Sure it does, we would be writing just a front-end. Which in case is not an
option for Harmony, since such code must be GPL.
Does anybody know if GCC allows such a thing?
Keep in mind I know squad about GCC and friends.
--
Stefano, who should really do his homework some day.
Andy is right:
Wow!
This is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
and one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
1) the goal of making things modular enough to allow to swap things
around and allow parallel development
2) create some internal (and friendly!)
I think everyone shall read this first
http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/info/overview.shtml . If performance
will not be a problem then the product based on Jikes can be an
alternative to Sun`s JVM.
Personally Java is the language I feel myself most confortable and I
think most of the people
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 18, 2005, at 2:18 AM, Ozgur Akan wrote:
I think everyone shall read this first http://
jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/info/overview.shtml . If performance will
not be a problem then the product based on Jikes can be an
alternative to Sun`s JVM.
Can we put the
We've been talking about two threads of discussion, one working with
a C/C++ based VM, one w/ Java.
Here's a Java one for discussion (just want to focus threads...)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
54 matches
Mail list logo
