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:
>>>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2008-November/msg000
>>>> 21.html
>>>>
>>>> So, shall we or shall we not?
>>>>
>>>> * Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Any progress on these parts?
>>>
http://gbenson.net/ <-- That's the guy working on it. It seems to be
making a
>>> lot of progress, but I don't know if it's ready to ship (probably
not?).
>> 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.
Andrew.
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
Not to mention that some packages perform better with AOT support than with the OpenJDK
JIT, like ecj.
--
Andrew :)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (
http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (
http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8