Re: [DotGNU]pnet and java again

[Jakob Praher]

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