Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com To: alk@pobox.com Cc: robert.collins@itdomain.com.au, java@gcc.gnu.org, cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: boehm-gc .comm problem References: <15132.28675.544618.75419@spanky.love.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@redhat.com From: Tom Tromey 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 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