Andrew Overholt wrote:
* Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com> [2008-11-20 11:33]:
> Andrew Overholt wrote:
>
>> Back when we wrote the initial Java packaging guidelines, we said that
>> packagers *should* include GCJ AOT bits. Should we remove this
>> requirement for Fedora 11 and beyond?
>>
>> Also, GCJ is still in the base install set for Fedora. Should we remove
>> this and make OpenJDK a default?
>
> This is a bit premature. We still don't have the OpenJDK JIT for PPC and
> ARM arches. We're working hard on it but it's not ready yet for prime-time.
> Without the JIT, OpenJDK is crushingly slow on these arches.
Should Smolt stats on architecture users affect this decision? It says
about 0.7% of users are on platforms without OpenJDK JITs.
http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html
I was hoping to be able to keep all arches going with gcj until a
really first-rate OpenJDK solution was available everywhere. I don't
think we want to make the useers of these arches into second- class
citizens: Fedora ARM, in particular, is great for mobile devices and
hasn't been supported for very long. I think its usage will increase.
Sure, the number of users is low, but on lower-performance boxes the
penalty of not having gcj and gcj-compiled packages available is quite
severe. I wouldn't object to weakening the "should" to a "may"
where
aot-compiling is a problem. Even without precompiled applications,
gcj is still a lot faster than the OpenJDK C++ interpreter.
Andrew.