Re: [DotGNU]pnet and java again

[Open Source]

Is there any way of making a connection with the java
bytecode and CLR?
If there is, then why consider the possibility of
optimizing the java bytecode and converting that
bytecode to CLR in one pass, and optimizing the CLR
bytecode in the second pass.

- Morphius

--- Jakob Praher <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am Die, 2002-02-05 um 14.50 schrieb Gopal.V:
> 
> >     A VM devoted to java would be the *easiest* way
> to go. If you are 
> > satisfied with Japhar or Kaffe, I think writing an
> Andromeda plugin and
> > implementing a SecurityManager will do the trick. 
> 
> It is not matter what I am statisfied with, rather
> it is important that
> people using the DotGNU java platform should get a
> *state of the art*
> JVM implementation, that supports modern dynamic
> compilation and lots of
> other things, that current ibm/sun implementations
> provide.
> 
> So that people have real freedom when choosing which
> vm to use.
> 
> > > 
> > > What I could imagine is, having generic modules,
> like Rhys is trying
> > > with the jit engine, I think, that can be used
> both for a JAVA runtime
> > > and a CLR.
> >     Well I'm working on a sort of idea around the
> Kaffe verifier to 
> > get that running using Pnet's IL data structures.
> Since Pnet can already
> > load Java classes (not complete), we can patch it
> up to support a good
> > verifier like Kaffe's (ref:
> kaffe/kaffevm/code-analyse.c). 
> > 
> >     After the verifier is done, implementing a
> JVMCoder for java support
> > should be a peice of cake.
> > > 
> > > (As I know too little about the CLR - so I don't
> know how complicated
> > > this sharing really is).
> > >
> >     In Pnet we have this idea called CVM which is the
> actual VM behind 
> > all this. Since the JVM instruction set is less
> extensive than the CLR
> > (ie does not have the pointer instructions), we
> should in theory be able
> > to make use of Rhys's work on the JIT.
> 
> that makes sense.
> I haven't known these facts.
> 
> When it comes to optimization and dynamic
> compilation, I am wondering 
> whether both architectures can be handled equally.
> 
> It is a matter of fact that the CLR carries a lot of
> extra weight, as it
> wants to provide maximum language support. 
> 
> Which IL/bytecode is your CVM working with?
> Is it the CLR-IL?
> 
> 
> Jakob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
>
http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com