Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
To:	alk AT pobox DOT com
Cc:	robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au, java AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: boehm-gc .comm problem
References:	<EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F037 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <15132 DOT 28675 DOT 544618 DOT 75419 AT spanky DOT love DOT edu>
X-Zippy:	SANTA CLAUS comes down a FIRE ESCAPE wearing bright
	blue LEG WARMERS.. He scrubs the POPE with a mild
	soap or detergent for 15 minutes, starring JANE FONDA!!
X-Attribution:	Tom
Reply-To:	tromey AT redhat DOT com
From:	Tom Tromey <tromey AT redhat DOT com>
Date:	05 Jun 2001 11:29:10 -0600
In-Reply-To:	Tony Kimball's message of "Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:37:07 -0500"
Message-ID:	<87ofs2kf89.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
Lines:	33
X-Mailer:	Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Kimball <alk AT pobox DOT com> writes:

Tony> It's hard to know which path to take, and difficult to justify
Tony> continuing down any one path to overcome an obstacle, when one
Tony> knows that there are other, untried paths, which might avoid all
Tony> obstacles and provide a cheap win.

If your goal is to get gcj-compiled Java programs running on Windows,
then my advice is to do a native port.  One reason for this is that
the GC needs a lot of platform-specific information.  Eliminating
Cygwin means that is one less layer to worry about; debugging will
probably be easier.

This doesn't mean a Cygwin port wouldn't be useful.  In fact, I'd like
to see both a Cygwin port and a native Windows port of libgcj.

In some ways doing a full native port is going to be more work than a
Cygwin port.  There are plenty of POSIX-y assumptions in the current
code that will need to be cleaned up.  However I think the work
involved in this route, while there is more of it, is likely to be
easier than porting to Cygwin.

Maybe I'm wrong though.  This is just a guess.


As far as how to host it, when I did Windows development in the past I
did all my programming on Linux and did cross-builds.  This was far
more comfortable for me.  This was in 1997, too, when Cygwin was
(presumably) less reliable than it is now.  On the other hand, I was
working with a unified tree so I didn't have to worry about separately
building and installing binutils.

Tom

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -