I have heard that floating point emulation in the kernel is *much* slower than replacing the code with calls to a floating point library. I thought I saw someone talking about a floating point package that they used to avoid the kernel traps to get improved performance.
I am trying to decide bewtween Kaffe and JamVM for our next Xscale processor project. Any feedback on why to use over the other? Charlie Charlie Woloszynski Innovative Concepts Inc. 703-893-2007 x506 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lougher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 7:46 AM To: Woloszynski, Charles Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JamVM on ARM (XScale) Hi, As far as my testing goes, JamVM works fine on little-endian ARM machines. I test each new release of JamVM against the latest Classpath version on an iPAQ (with a PXA250). The problems that could arise are that I assume floating-point emulation is enabled in the kernel (affects calling-convention). I also didn't realise that there was any big-endian ARMs running Linux. However, a simple patch should fix JamVM for BE -- the endian-ness of doubles are a bit wierd on ARM. If anbody's interested I can send it to them (though I can't test it). I'd also be interested to hear if anybody else has used JamVM on ARM. For example, is requiring floating-point emulation in the kernel a problem? As I said, the only changes needed is related to the calling-convention. JamVM assumes floats are passed in registers. I'd need to modify the routine that constructs a native call frame (JamVM's equivalent to sysdepCallMethod) or use libffi. Rob. _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
