gcj 3.0 post-mortem

[Per Bothner]

"Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> writes:

> Rather than a Solaris port here's my (GNU/Linux) wish list:
> 
> - real methods names in gij stack traces

It might be nice to offer a JIT as an option for GCJ, and specifically
I've thinking it might be a good idea to support Intel's Open Runtime
Platform ( http://intel.com/research/mrl/orp/ ).  Yes, ORP only supports
Intel platforms, but if it is a good JIT (as my impression is) and
the license is acceptable (as it seems to be), it should be possible
to add support for other architectures.

In addition to the obvious performance advantage of a JIT, there is
also a debugging advantage, as all call frames (JIT-compiled and
GCJ-compiled) would have the same layout.  It should also be easier
to have gdb work with JIT-compiled rather than interpreted code.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/