On 18:40 Wed 15 Apr , Andrew Haley wrote:
Andrew Overholt wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:21 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Conrad Meyer wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 15 April 2009 10:11:18 am Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>>> Here is the original thread:
>>>> So, shall we or shall we not?
>>>> * Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Overholt wrote:
>>>>>> Back when we wrote the initial Java packaging guidelines, we
>>>>>> packagers *should* include GCJ AOT bits. Should we remove this
>>>>>> requirement for Fedora 11 and beyond?
>>>>> 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
>>>>> prime-time. Without the JIT, OpenJDK is crushingly slow on these
>>>> Any progress on these parts?
<-- That's the guy working on it. It seems to be
>>> lot of progress, but I don't know if it's ready to ship (probably
>> Lots of progress, not yet ready.
> At what point do we decide to drop gcj bits regardless of the status of
> Shark? (I'm honestly asking here and not trying to troll)
As soon as we want to hurt the people using gcj.
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
Not to mention that some packages perform better with AOT support than with the OpenJDK
JIT, like ecj.
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net
Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8