Hi Guilhem, On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 22:34 +0200, Guilhem Lavaux wrote: > I have a working native layer branch on jamvm (though I have not really > counted if there was a regression I know the one from kaffe and the > important ones in mauve are passing on standard linux). I will propose > before the end of the week a patch against HEAD for a merge. I suggest > people to take a look at the state of the NATIVE-LAYER branch and tell > me if they see huge trouble with it. There are still a lot to do but the > current state get rid of the target layer. I would like to remove the > other remaining direct syscalls from the rest of the JNI code for clarity.
Yeah, it is probably a good idea to merge it back now otherwise you will keep having to merge things back and forth. I haven't reviewed the current branch code yet, but I did follow your patches. It is essential that if this is merged there are no mauve regressions for runtimes that use the classpath JNI code. If you need a help verifying that please do post a patch NATIVE-LAYER -> trunk somewhere so others can help you test that. > It's a pain to merge HEAD to NATIVE-LAYER by the way (too many patches > ;) )... Sorry about that. Lets ask everybody to stop working so hard :) It is indeed kind of amazing how many patches are written each day now. I have trouble keeping on top of it all myself at times. Cheers, Mark -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
