Re: GNU Classpath + JRVM

[Brian Jones]

John Leuner <address@hidden> writes:

> > Would changing VMClassLoader.getPrimitiveClass(String type) to a
> > non-native function to call VM_Type work here instead?
> 
> Yes, that would work.

Great!

> > All of the places where you either commented out or took out the
> > System.loadLibrary calls that are inside the 
> > `if (Configuration.INIT_LOAD_LIBRARY)' blocks seem unnecessary, you
> > can disable this code in configure using --disable-load-library if
> > you're not using any native methods at all.  In your case is it
> > necessary to selectively comments out these blocks based on the class
> > or package involved?
> 
> I don't remember any specific reason for commenting them out.
> 
> There are/were one or two cases where I had to 'fabricate' a static 
> initializer
> for a class, but I think that is unrelated to the commenting of the 
> INIT_LOAD_LIBRARY
>  blocks.

Okay, I guess we can ignore that change for now.

> > What is the reason for changing FileDescriptor to make the file
> > descriptor public and the constructor public?
> 
> I don't know, in my notes I didn't write down a reason.  I removed
> the field, recompiled and it ran successfully.  This was probably a
> side-effect of including the GNU libraries piece by piece.

And ignore this change too.

> I don't like preprocessing because it implies another level in the build 
> process, 
> but it looks like the best option at the moment.

It's not that bad.  I know where to put this piece and how it should
work; I worry about small details like will generating the .java
source force recompiles on every make invocation?

> Classpath is still changing a lot, I think it will be easier for developers 
> to 
> see what effect their changes will have when all the code is in the same place
> (versus in separate VM files).

I think so too.

> > What is the status of this code you reference, "Additional
> > code was provided by Maria Butrico. The code she sent me is JRVM
> > specific code that had been inserted into the IBM OTI class
> > libraries" ?
> 
> This is essentially the code that calls methods in the VM_* classes.
> 
> It doesn't really have a "home" .. it was extracted from the changes made 
> to the IBM OTI libraries. There may be a few cases where we can reduce
> the amount of extra code needed in Classpath by including code upstream in 
> JRVM.

I'm asking only in reference to any need for assignment paperwork on
those bits.

-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>