Tue, 3 May 2005 15:08:49 +0200,
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
>> I think some of upstream agrees with me. I don't think calling it bcabi
>> was ever officially intended.
>>
>> I think mjw (who is that, Mark?) recommended
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> I think some of upstream agrees with me. I don't think calling it bcabi
> was ever officially intended.
>
> I think mjw (who is that, Mark?) recommended against both -jbi and
> -bcabi and for -gcj. I'm on board with that if we can get
I think some of upstream agrees with me. I don't think calling it bcabi
was ever officially intended.
I think mjw (who is that, Mark?) recommended against both -jbi and
-bcabi and for -gcj. I'm on board with that if we can get other
agreement.
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 07:43 +0200, Michael Koch wrote
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:24:32AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200,
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are
> > somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to
> > know
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:30:53PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:30 +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> > We can decide to pubild only some archs to native. E.g. native libs for
> > Eclipse
> > make little sense on arm.
>
> Why does it make less sense on arm then on any
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 04:26:19PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> I have no idea what Ubuntu is going to do, as I ran out of time to do
> it. I will assuradly do what Debian does, so I'm here to influence
> Debian's decision. ;). Either way, I think bcabi is a stupid name. Even
> spelled out it doesn
Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200,
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are
> somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to
> know what is special about the package. In a future release the bcabi
> will also
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:00 +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:35:56 +0100,
> Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is
> > aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting
> > the j
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:28 +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:55:00PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500,
> > Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Koch wrote:
> > > | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Ha
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:30 +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> We can decide to pubild only some archs to native. E.g. native libs for
> Eclipse
> make little sense on arm.
Why does it make less sense on arm then on any of the other
architectures?
Cheers,
Mark
signature.asc
Description: This i
I have no idea what Ubuntu is going to do, as I ran out of time to do
it. I will assuradly do what Debian does, so I'm here to influence
Debian's decision. ;). Either way, I think bcabi is a stupid name. Even
spelled out it doesn't say anything "binary compatible application
binary interface". Bina
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:00:54PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> About the archive space, don't forget you have to multiple the space by
> the number of different arches (12 or so)!..
We can decide to pubild only some archs to native. E.g. native libs for Eclipse
make little sense on arm.
Mich
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:55:00PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500,
> Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Koch wrote:
> > | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> > [...]
> > |>I would like to name the secondary native pa
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:35:56 +0100,
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote:
[...]
>> Iterpreted languages hardly need me to back them up, but I think they
>> have a proven track record. Taking one of the leading interpreted
>> lang
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500,
Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Koch wrote:
> | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> [...]
> |>I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix
> |>(Java Binary Interface). Some people like the na
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:14:58 +0100,
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix
>> (Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that
>> is what the GCJ folks tend to refer to it as. BC ABI: Binary Compatible
>
> "Barry" == Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Barry> It must be underscored that this is a _potential_ speed gain. We
Barry> actually are not certain what speed gains, if any, we will have.
There's a fair amount of benchmarking data out there:
http://klomp.org/mark/free-vm-benchmar
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:30:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:10, Michael Koch wrote:
> > > Hmmm, the idea has its merits. Implementationwise, it'd make more sense
> > > to have $lib-jbi Build-Depend on $lib-java. The $lib-jbi would have to be
> > > a sperate source,
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:10, Michael Koch wrote:
> > Hmmm, the idea has its merits. Implementationwise, it'd make more sense
> > to have $lib-jbi Build-Depend on $lib-java. The $lib-jbi would have to be
> > a sperate source, but I imagine that cuold be a very small standard
> > template, which f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Baer wrote:
[...]
| Are there any tests done in the past for the gain against jit or
| interpretative mode ?
|
| Otherwise I think some testcases would be very good here:
|
| How much gain does it bring for architectures (like i386) - where
| a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:06:45PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> Michael Koch wrote:
> [...]
> >You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is
> >aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting
> >the jar.
> >Doing (c) and fixing JIT runtimes can be good,
Michael Koch wrote:
[...]
You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is
aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting
the jar.
Doing (c) and fixing JIT runtimes can be good, but it ist a hard work
too. The Kaffe people put much efforts into this. JIT w
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jerry Haltom wrote:
> [...]
> | The main
> | motivation for this is speed. There is no JIT overhead involved and it
> | runs native, not interpreted. It is worth noting that the Kaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Haltom wrote:
[...]
| The main
| motivation for this is speed. There is no JIT overhead involved and it
| runs native, not interpreted. It is worth noting that the Kaffe folks
| want to integrate support for this binary interface into Kaffe.
It mu
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 14:14 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
I'm just an end user, but I'd like to share my thoughts on the package
naming.
> > I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix
> > (Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that
> > is what th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Koch wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
[...]
|>I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix
|>(Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that
|>is what the GCJ
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Attention Java Maintainers: This Effects You
>
>
> This is a recap of an ad-hoc discussion a number of Java maintainers had
> a few minutes ago in #debian-java concerning our direction with regards
> to including native GCJ compiled
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:13:44AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 22:05, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> > But just for discussion - wouldn't there be a third possibility ?
> > (Sorry if this is a stupid question !).
> >
> > What about a creating a second source package which build-de
On Sunday 13 March 2005 22:05, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> But just for discussion - wouldn't there be a third possibility ?
> (Sorry if this is a stupid question !).
>
> What about a creating a second source package which build-depends
> on the java source package to produce the native binary. This wou
Jerry Haltom wrote:
Attention Java Maintainers: This Effects You
Although I am not a DD here are my comments/questions.
This is a recap of an ad-hoc discussion a number of Java maintainers had
a few minutes ago in #debian-java concerning our direction with regards
to including native GCJ compiled J
Disregard this. I accidentally hit send. I am still finishing it. =(
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 13:04 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Attention Java Maintainers: This Effects You
>
>
> This is a recap of an ad-hoc discussion a number of Java maintainers had
> a few minutes ago in #debian-java concerning
31 matches
Mail list logo
