On Feb 4, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Hi Casey,
Following my previous mail, please try this small performance test.
It illustrates what I want to do and the performance "loss" that is
expected.
Simply unpack and run make.
I wasn't saying that what you were doing would incu
Hi Casey,
Following my previous mail, please try this small performance test. It
illustrates what I want to do and the performance "loss" that is expected.
Simply unpack and run make.
Cheers,
Guilhem.
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Casey Marshall
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:10 PM, David P Grove wrote:
Jikes RVM also does m-to-n threading, so it's there's more than 1 VM
that's whacky in this regard. The things we need to do are most
likely
di
On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:10 PM, David P Grove wrote:
Jikes RVM also does m-to-n threading, so it's there's more than 1 VM
that's whacky in this regard. The things we need to do are most
likely
different than what Kaffe n
yep, that's pretty much the situation with m-n threading in Jikes RVM. For
the blocking operations, we need to replace the entire call with something
else. There might be some cases where the callbacks could be useful, but
they wouldn't be a complete solution for us.
--dave
Guilhem Lavaux <[E
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:10 PM, David P Grove wrote:
Jikes RVM also does m-to-n threading, so it's there's more than 1 VM
that's whacky in this regard. The things we need to do are most likely
different than what Kaffe needs to do, but having a chance to inject
a VM
call
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:10 PM, David P Grove wrote:
Jikes RVM also does m-to-n threading, so it's there's more than 1 VM
that's whacky in this regard. The things we need to do are most
likely
different than what Kaffe needs to do, but having a chance to
inject a VM
callback before the thread
Jikes RVM also does m-to-n threading, so it's there's more than 1 VM
that's whacky in this regard. The things we need to do are most likely
different than what Kaffe needs to do, but having a chance to inject a VM
callback before the thread dives off into a blocking system call is
something we
On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 22:00 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
Granted,
Aicas is a commercial party and cannot publish every port. There
is also
Kaffe, which is 100% GPL and now also suggest something similar
like the
target layer, only somewhat ni
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 22:00 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
> I get the impression that there
> is a general opposition against real portability concerns within the GNU
> (Classpath?) project. Correct me if I am wrong. There certainly are
> parties that have portability demands that go beyong posix.
Y
Per Bothner wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
We have the responsibility, as contributors to a GNU project, to
maintain the project for the GNU system. GNU is sorta-POSIX, as are a
lot of other interesting platforms, and targeting them earns us, as
free software contributors -- not necessarily o
On Jan 31, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
Hi Casey,
Am Dienstag, den 31.01.2006, 12:37 -0800 schrieb Casey Marshall:
On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
Hi Brian, hi list,
Yea, I think the point for me would be to keep Classpath's java
hackers
out of the business of wr
Hi Casey,
Am Dienstag, den 31.01.2006, 12:37 -0800 schrieb Casey Marshall:
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian, hi list,
> >
> >> Yea, I think the point for me would be to keep Classpath's java
> >> hackers
> >> out of the business of writing native code, and espe
Casey Marshall wrote:
We have the responsibility, as contributors to a GNU project, to
maintain the project for the GNU system. GNU is sorta-POSIX, as are a
lot of other interesting platforms, and targeting them earns us, as
free software contributors -- not necessarily other groups or comp
On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
Hi Brian, hi list,
Yea, I think the point for me would be to keep Classpath's java
hackers
out of the business of writing native code, and especially out of the
business of porting native code for such common idioms as generic
file
operati
Hi Brian, hi list,
> Yea, I think the point for me would be to keep Classpath's java hackers
> out of the business of writing native code, and especially out of the
> business of porting native code for such common idioms as generic file
> operations, network operations, etc.
BTW, Torsten, the
Brian Jones wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 12:20 -0500, Brian Jones wrote:
It would be nice, I believe, to re-use libraries that have handled
most of the "porting" and "wrapping" for you such as APR
(http://apr.apache.org/), or NPR
(http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/
Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 12:20 -0500, Brian Jones wrote:
It would be nice, I believe, to re-use libraries that have handled most
of the "porting" and "wrapping" for you such as APR
(http://apr.apache.org/), or NPR (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/)
to platforms GNU C
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 12:20 -0500, Brian Jones wrote:
> It would be nice, I believe, to re-use libraries that have handled most
> of the "porting" and "wrapping" for you such as APR
> (http://apr.apache.org/), or NPR (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/)
> to platforms GNU Classpath might care
Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
I thought to have been already clear about that in the past (and with
no answers !). Let's try to summarise my goal:
* if we want something which is quite portable (but maybe not as
portable as aicas portability layer) we must ensure some level of
abstraction to hide ho
On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 15:17 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
> >- Writing concise, portable (in the realm of POSIXy systems, at
> > least) native implementations of VM* classes that require native
> > support.
>
> Through autoconf and replacement functions where needed. That is how
> lib
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 17:02 -0800, Casey Marshall wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
> > I thought to have been already clear about that in the past (and
> > with no answers !).
>
> Sorry, I meant to reply about what you were proposing, but forgot :-)
Yeah, sorry.
On Jan 28, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Guilhem,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:43 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
I would like to mention that I am developping/fine tuning the new
native layer for classpath in a separate branch called "NATIVE-
LAYER
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Guilhem,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:43 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
I would like to mention that I am developping/fine tuning the new native
layer for classpath in a separate branch called "NATIVE-LAYER". If you
have some time to give your impres
Hi Guilhem,
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:43 +0100, Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
> I would like to mention that I am developping/fine tuning the new native
> layer for classpath in a separate branch called "NATIVE-LAYER". If you
> have some time to give your impressions then fet
Hi classpath !
I would like to mention that I am developping/fine tuning the new native
layer for classpath in a separate branch called "NATIVE-LAYER". If you
have some time to give your impressions then fetch it and look into
native/jni/native-lib, native/jni/java-io, ...
the
26 matches
Mail list logo
