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
JIRA: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProject.jspa?id=10740
SVN: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/harmony/
thanks,
dims
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
If we are going to entertain writing most of the JVM in a type-safe
language, we should also consider the proposed ECMA C++/CLI. From
what I understand, it standardizes a form of type-safe C++. It has
the promise of keeping both the Java and C camps happy.
Not really. First, it is a Microsoft
I've put some corrections in, so that its more understandable.
Jakob Praher wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 19, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Jakob Praher wrote:
I don't understand
Take classpath project. It aims at working accross open vms. So you have
to build a glue layer between what is
So have to agree with Mark...
Making a JVM in a .NET language this deserves a . LOL
Sorry if i sound out of order had to do it :s
On 5/19/05, Mark Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we are going to entertain writing most of the JVM in a type-safe
language, we should also
[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
On May 19, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Jakob Praher wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 19, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Jakob Praher wrote:
- do we want to concentrate on the server side (jikes rvm would
probably be fine for that) - for instance: no startup issues
- do we want to build something that competes
On May 19, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can the VM be tweaked to work on standard OSs?
Not immediately. I have raised the Harmony issue on the
development forums, so I hope that they show interest in the issue
here, and may be able to elaborate
Thanks Dims.
I'd again urge to not commit anything until we hash out some
policies. This is an important issue.
In the meantime, any comments on architectures of some of the VMs?
I'm interest in having a balanced amount of upfront design that
prevents us from preventing participation from
On May 19, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Rob Gonzalez wrote:
- jc (written in C)
- jikes rvm (written in java)
Between those two I'm on the side of jc becuase it should run faster
than jikes rvm, I don't know why it wouldn't. Though I don't know why
Kaffe isn't on the list.
AFAICT JC is the only real
On May 19, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Ian Darwin wrote:
AFAICT JC is the only real option on the table right now.
- jc was donated under the apache license.
since we're now officially in the incubator, can we check this
into an
apache SVN repository and get hacking at it?
MudgeVM is under an open
On May 19, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
Hi,
What can someone that agreed to the SCSL contribute?
I've agreed on the SCSL for the 1.4.2 JVM and I want to contribute to
Harmony.
I did a carefull reading of the license and in my layman's
undestanding,
I cannot contribute to anything
On 5/19/05, Ahmed Saad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then, if the VM is written in Java it will be compiled to native code
using,
for example, gcj?
or it will be compiled to byte code and will be interpreted by itself?
One could interpret the VM code but it would be too slow for many. A
better
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
- JCVM is maybe the VM as I would have written it : it's pure C, quite easy,
and yet focus on bringing good speed. The interp loop is well optimized but
not very defensive : that means that a hole in the bytecode loader verifier
could lead to a forged bytecode exploit. It doesn't do JIT, and
$B!d(BThis is why I would like Harmony to have two VMs, one written in java
$B!d(Band one written in C-or-friends: this would give us
$B!d(B
$B!d(B 1) the goal of making things modular enough to allow to swap things
$B!d(Baround and allow parallel development
$B!d(B
$B!d(B 2) create
(B
$B!d(BFrom the llvm web site: "LLVM does not currently support garbage
$B!d(Bcollection of multi-threaded programs or GC-safe points other than
$B!d(Bfunction calls, but these will be added in the future as there is
$B!d(Binterest." I would imagine that's quite a lot of work.
(B
(BI like it.
(B
$B!d(B* Work together with the GCJ people to build a really fast AOT-compiler
$B!d(Bthat also works with LLVM based Execution Engine
(B
(BI which case we theoretically have a JIT at supposedly low cost...
(B(translating bytecode to bytecode /without having to optimize it/
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!)
So for those who are not compiler buffs but wish to be, this MIT online
courseware stuff can be helpful. Also buy the books especially the
Tiger one for an introthe more advanced books by Steven Muchnick are
a much more challenging read and the fortran hurts my head...though the
theory is
24 matches
Mail list logo
