[kaffe] Re: dotnet platform support / gnu config.sub (long)

Dalibor Topic robilad at kaffe.org
Wed Sep 24 11:10:03 PDT 2003

Guido Draheim wrote:

> For the java machine, the term `jvm` is used universally. I do not
> remember there were any dependency on pointer lengths, it runs in
> managed mode always.

JVM, JDK, Java, etc. are all trade marks with associated conditions of 
use. http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J . Are you sure you want/need to 
use them?

> Since ilvm64 may be run on a 32bit system, we do set the two
> cpu/vm types of "ilvm" and "ilvm32" for the dotnet binaries
> and libraries. Alongside we use "jvm" for jar binaries

A virtual machine capable of executing programs written in java 
programing language usually executes only classes stored in class files. 
Some virtual machines also have the capability of executing programs 
stored in zip archives, or jar archives. So 'jvm' is a misleading term here.

> Therefore, for jvm we do usually paste 'java' as interpreter and
> 'jdk' as basic service series. Likewise the dotnet binaries are
> given as 'ilrun' for the interpreter and 'mono' for the service
> series (or something alike).

Not all java interpreters are called 'java'. there is gij, sablevm, 
kaffe, wonka, and a ton of others, that don't necessarily fit into this 
naming scheme. While some of them provide java-named wrapper scripts, 
I'm not sure if all of them do.

> jvm-sun-java-jdk
> jvm-sun-java-j2me
> jvm-sun-java-j2se
> jvm-sun-java-j2ee

uh, what's that sun doing there? ;) what's the difference between 
jvm-sun-java-jdk and jvm-sun-java-j2se supposed to be? and so on ...

I believe it would be better if you got in touch with kaffe, gcj, 
sablevm, classpath, debian-java etc. developers before you try to push 
something as big as this through as some kind of a GNU convention. I 
don't know much about .net yet, and being a kaffe developer, I'm more 
focussed on the java side of things. AFAIK, similar definitions have 
been tried before on debian-java, and failed.

On the other hand, if the virtual machine implementors of varios GNU 
projects have already been consulted, and this is the concensual 
proposal, I'd like to have the reference to the mailing list threads ;) 
If that's not happended, then let's discuss this first, as it's a good 
idea, but it needs to be discussed in a broader, more realted audience, 
than the libtool mailing list, which, sincerely, doesn't seem like a 
good pick to debate the finer details of naming vm systems. ;)

dalibor topic

More information about the kaffe mailing list