Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues

[Etienne Gagnon]

Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> > > Indeed. The goal is to find the optimal solution that would be spec
> > > compliant, portable and efficient.

and later:
> I'm not the one nitpicking about pure ISO C portability (I don't use
> JNI, so I couldn't care less), ...

and later:
> > and is of thus ranks lower than my proposal on 2 counts:
> > 1- Efficiency:
>
> For a JNI based implementation, maybe, but I'd argue that anyone using
> JNI doesn't care about performance anyway.

You contradict yourself.  First you say that the optimal is spec compliant,
portable, and efficient.  Then you say that you couldn't care less about
the spec compliant JNI interface, that portability across JVMs/compilers
on a single platform is of no interest, and that efficiency of JNI is
not an objective of your proposal.

OK. So, it is clear that I am wasting my time, here.  I now clearly understand
that the main motivation is for Classpath to use less portable approaches when
they make CNI faster, as the performance of CNI and the other non-spec compliant
interfaces is the main objective.

Fine.  I'll devote my time elsewhere.

Etienne

--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.             http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/