Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-11-20 11:33]: >> Andrew Overholt wrote: >> >>> Back when we wrote the initial Java packaging guidelines, we said that >>> packagers *should* include GCJ AOT bits. Should we remove this >>> requirement for Fedora 11 and beyond? >>> >>> Also, GCJ is still in the base install set for Fedora. Should we remove >>> this and make OpenJDK a default? >> >> This is a bit premature. We still don't have the OpenJDK JIT for PPC and >> ARM arches. We're working hard on it but it's not ready yet for prime-time. >> Without the JIT, OpenJDK is crushingly slow on these arches. > > Should Smolt stats on architecture users affect this decision? It says > about 0.7% of users are on platforms without OpenJDK JITs. > > http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html I was hoping to be able to keep all arches going with gcj until a really first-rate OpenJDK solution was available everywhere. I don't think we want to make the useers of these arches into second- class citizens: Fedora ARM, in particular, is great for mobile devices and hasn't been supported for very long. I think its usage will increase. Sure, the number of users is low, but on lower-performance boxes the penalty of not having gcj and gcj-compiled packages available is quite severe. I wouldn't object to weakening the "should" to a "may" where aot-compiling is a problem. Even without precompiled applications, gcj is still a lot faster than the OpenJDK C++ interpreter. Andrew. -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
