On Sunday 12 November 2006 00:39 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > Ok I think I've come up with a reasonable compromise. I still used the > > whole system of converting XML and all the stuff. It does quite a lot of > > things in setup and init targets and using <select> is convenient. I > > don't know how to untangle all of the setup and not do a lot of > > duplication in ant scripting which I am not big expert in. > > Why? Why do we want to persist with this system, when WE ARE GOING TO > GET RID OF IT at some point?
One reason would be is that I don't know ant well enough to redesign the whole stuff all together. I used the existing setup and init targets which take care of including ancontrip and cctask jars. If you ask me, I'd prefer make in the first place, ant is just too foreign to me. There is no reason to use caps, we didn't even start to discuss how we want to see drlvm build and "when WE ARE GOING TO GET RID OF IT at some point". > Did you also fix the silliness of having to use annotations to exclude > tests? Please? :) No, the patch has an exclude example using and <exclude> statement in patternset in its beginning. > I'm glad we have these tests, but really... I wish you hadn't invested > the time integrating it into the DRLVM build system... Even if we write a new one from scratch I want the tests right now. There were several times when JVMTI was broken since there were no tests for it at all since it is a special VM mode no one usually uses. The time invested, well... I learned a lot since the last time I used ant. Maybe one day I'll be able to write something as impressive and unmaintainable as the current drlvm built :) Seriously, if we're going to change it, let's discuss it how we want it to look like and which tool we'll use. I vote for make (gnu version, that is gmake), even on win32 it exists in cygwin and mingw. -- Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division
