This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [freenet-tech] Technology / Features
- From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- To: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:47:30 +1300
- Subject: Re: [freenet-tech] Technology / Features
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10202281926230.30980-100000@mars.deadcafe.org> <87it8hrslg.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <86vgch3xs9.fsf@megacz.com> <3C7EDB02.4010300@bothner.com> <87y9hcrjvm.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3C7F1564.A73FC17B@email.byu.edu> <3C7F2E31.5060100@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <1015156990.935.142.camel@elsschot>
Mark Wielaard wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 08:30, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
>>The cool thing about GCJ is that there arn't any bootstrapping issues
>>for JITs written in Java. Come to think of it, I wonder why Tom wrote
>>the verifier in C++ ;-)
>>
>
>OK, I will show my ignorance. Is there actually a real reason that the
>verifier is written in C++. I see the smiley but don't know how to
>interpret it in this situation. Having a verifier written in java would
>be a very nice thing since then we could integrate it with ClassLoader
>so other VMs don't have to implement their own verification.
>
There are a couple of verifiers written in Java that I know about.
Kresten Krab Thorup (who wrote the libgcj interpreter) wrote one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/1999-q3/msg00118.html
I think we never integrated it into libgcj mainly because he was a bit
dissapointed with its performance when compiled with gcj, but gcj sucked
a lot more back then than it does now ;-)
There is also another one called JustIce:
http://bcel.sourceforge.net/(click on JustIce)
regards
Bryce.