Michael Koch <konqueror <at> gmx.de> writes: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:39:19PM +0000, Robert Lougher wrote: > > Michael Koch <konqueror <at> gmx.de> writes: > > > > > > > Please don't use jamvm in general. It's only available on i386, powerpc > > > and arm. It's not ported yet to other archs and Porting to 64-bit archs > > > is hard due to the 32-bit ugliness in the upstream code. > > > > > > Better choices are gij, kaffe or sablevm. > > >
--- rant excised --- > > > > You totally misunderstood me. I only meant for building the package. We > need predictable build system that uses the same software on each arch. > Using one VM on some archs and another VM on other archs is no solution > for the predictable build problem. At runtime users can use the VM > whatever they want. I apologize if my original mail was so unclear. I > use jamvm as my main VM on i386 and powerpc. I'm really happy with it. > I jumped to conclusions, which is inexcusable. I want jamvm to stand on its technical merits and be used (or not) based on that. I don't push jamvm over other VMs (or try not to) as it usually does the opposite (which I'm afraid I've done here). Is it still your main VM :) > > For the record, 64-bit support is the next thing on my TODO list -- I've > > recently bought an AMD64 machine specifically to do this. I'm currently > > finishing off a port to MacOS X which people have been asking for > Thats reallyu great news. Hopefully I'll get started in a couple of days. Moving to libffi (as an option for unsupported architectures/platforms) will help future ports as well. Rob. > > Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
