On 18 May 2007 at 14:13, "Sergey Dmitriev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys
>
> > > Can we remove the env.MACHINE_ARCH variable and just use os.arch (as
> > > classlib does)? Or is this a workaround for people building x86_64 with
> > > an ia32 jvm?
> > I've never seen it used, but anyway those people can directly override
> > "os.arch" (AFAIS "build.arch" it's name in drlvm build system ;) ). So
> > +1 to remove.
>
> As for the MACHINE_ARCH... That was introduced knowingly just because
> unfortunately Ant's os.arch does not distinguish x86_64 and x86
> platforms. That is why on linux in build.sh we use:
> MACHINE_ARCH=`uname -m`
Ant's os.arch is sufficient for classlib - provided you use a x86_64
jvm on x86_64. This should also be true for drlvm??
-Mark.
> As for the subject of the letter as a whole - Mark, I like you're
> looking at macosx/ppc32. Thats for sure! :)
> On 5/18/07, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark,
> > It's really nice to see you finally approaching drlvm! :)
> > More inlined...
> >
> > 2007/5/18, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > I'm looking at what would need to be changed in drlvm to support more
> > > platforms. (Specifically, I'm looking at macosx/ppc32 and I'll probably
> > > look at freebsd/x86 and maybe freebsd/x86_64.) I thought I'd mention
> > > some of the issues I've found so far regarding changes I plan to make
> > > just to see if I'm taking a reasonable approach.
> > >
> > > There are at least three locations that set up os/arch variables:
> > >
> > > build/make/build.xml setup.xml targets/ehwa.test.xml
> > >
> > > For now, I'm just going to update all three, but really we need to
> > > figure out how to reconcile these. (Ideally, we should reconcile them
> > > along with the classlib logic just as we need to figure out how to
> > > reconcile the shared dependencies.)
> > Yes, ultimately all top-levevl projects should use a shared setup (aka
> > properties.xml) and dependencies.
> >
> > >
> > > I plan to add an if.unix property (or three ;-). Similarly, I plan to
> > > add an osfamily variable for use in the <select /> tags. Ultimately,
> > > some of the directories called 'linux' might want to be renamed 'unix'
> > > but I'll tackle that after I've seen what code is likely to be common.
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > Is the ant variable vm.port.includes defined anywhere? (I spotted
> > > ${vm.port.includes} in verbose logs and just wondered if this was
> > > intentional?)
> >
> > This must be overlooked piece spread through copy-paste, just remove it.
> >
> > > Can we remove the env.MACHINE_ARCH variable and just use os.arch (as
> > > classlib does)? Or is this a workaround for people building x86_64 with
> > > an ia32 jvm?
> > I've never seen it used, but anyway those people can directly override
> > "os.arch" (AFAIS "build.arch" it's name in drlvm build system ;) ). So
> > +1 to remove.
> >
> > >
> > > Quite a few files contain #include <malloc.h> but the linux/freebsd/osx
> > > man page for malloc(3) says it should be #include <stdlib.h>. I seem
> > > to recall making this change in classlib code at some point, but will
> > > fixing this in drlvm break anything? Windows?
> >
> > Most invokations of malloc in DRLVM are wrapped via macros defined in
> > port_malloc.h. I see <malloc.h> directly included only in jitrino and
> > portlib sources. The first was not fully moved to using portlib for
> > historical reasons, feel free to fix.
> > And the last may be fixed to consistently use port_malloc.h as well.
> >
> > > I'll probably start making changes over the weekend. Once I've made the
> > > basic build system changes then I guess I'll start looking at porting
> > > the actual code.
> > Cool! And all good luck to you ;)
> >
> > WBR,
> > Alexey
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
