[Pnet-developers] Re: Pnet-developers Digest, Vol 22, Issue 9

[Kirill Kononenko]

Aleksey,

Would you please review your position  on the '--with-static-libjit'
patch. The way of compilation you described above is not practically
useful.

First  of all, it requires that the libjit snapshots are available.
Second, it requires them to be available in the parent to pnet
directory. Moreover, it requires to have two copies of the same cvs.

I understand that unconscionably you try to promot libjit as its
active developer. That's ok because you work a lot on it and you care
on it as of 'your own child'. But really the way of compilation that
you described above is not practically useful for someone who
downloads the Portable.NET snapshots more ofter than in a week. But
even then it should become a headache in some time.

Thereof,  in my opinion, pnet snapshots need an alternative, which
would be independent of libjit source code in the parent directory,
as the one implemented in the '--with-static-libjit' patch.

Please understand me right and review your position on the patch.

K

--
Kirill Kononenko
mail: kirill DOT kononenko AT gmail DOT com
PGP/GPG public key availabe on request


> > >     _______________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Reply to this item at:
> > >
> > >   <http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?5338>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >   Message sent


> I suggest that you consult some info on the topic. For example, check:
> http://www.openembedded.org/ and its build system.
>
> -k
>
> On 16/09/06, Kirill Kononenko <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I think i didn't not get my point across. What you say here is the
> > same as asking
> > "why to use C if we could use assembler?".
> >
> >
> > > Follow-up Comment #1, patch #5338 (project dotgnu-pnet):
> >
> > > ./configure --disable-shared for libjit will do the same without any
> > > additional options. If you need an easy way to switch between shared and
> > > non-shared builds then the simplest solution would be to build in different
> > > directories. Therefore I do not see any need for this patch.
> >
> > On 16/09/06, address@hidden
> > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Send Pnet-developers mailing list submissions to
> > >         address@hidden
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >         http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pnet-developers
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >         address@hidden
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >         address@hidden
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Pnet-developers digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. [patch #5338] Embed libjit in the JIT (Aleksey Demakov)
> > >    2. [patch #5391] Libjit support for displaying local variables
> > >       (Aleksey Demakov)
> > >    3. [patch #5349] If we have reached the end of the   stream is not
> > >       an exception (Klaus Treichel)
> > >    4. [patch #5193] Marshaling support (jitc_pinvoke.c) - updated
> > >       (Klaus Treichel)
> > >    5. [patch #5179] Marshaling support for the  Just-In-Time
> > >       Compiler-jitc.c (Klaus Treichel)
> > >    6. [patch #5178] Marshaling support for the  Just-In-Time
> > >       Compiler-jitc_pinvoke.c (Klaus Treichel)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:27:25 +0700
> > > From: Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden>
> > > Subject: [Pnet-developers] [patch #5338] Embed libjit in the JIT
> > > To: Kirill Kononenko <address@hidden>, Aleksey Demakov
> > >         <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> > > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
> > >
> > >
> > > Follow-up Comment #1, patch #5338 (project dotgnu-pnet):
> > >
> > > ./configure --disable-shared for libjit will do the same without any
> > > additional options. If you need an easy way to switch between shared and
> > > non-shared builds then the simplest solution would be to build in different
> > > directories. Therefore I do not see any need for this patch.
> > >