sablevm-developer

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Priority list

[Chris P. <chr...@ma...>]

>
>compiling sablevm in different ways.
>
>The very serious question is whether my approach of "swiss-army-knife"
>is right (Chris says that Bruno's script is easier to read, so there's
>probably sth. wrong with mine).
>
I wouldn't necessarily listen to me as I don't know enough about scripts 
to write either yours or Bruno's.  I'm sure you guys can work something 
out.  I think the various sablevm builds should not be built into the 
script itself, but only the different options passable to configure (it 
would be nice to see one letter abbreviations though, like SDIGTB for 
switch, direct, inlined, GC, traditional, bidirectional).   Rather, the 
user can invoke the script specifying how many different builds and with 
what options.  If they like, this can go in a secondary script.  The 
main purpose is to simplify the autoconf routine, as well as handling 
CVS and .tar.gz distributions.  I don't know, I'm rambling.

Cheers,
Chris

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Priority list

[Bruno D. <bru...@ma...>]

Hi,

	When I started to write my version of the script, I wanted a simple=20
replacement for build/build-many which would check for errors during the=20
builds. You may disagree with the way I do it (I don't think it is a grea=
t=20
script either, but it was written very late too). I specifically chose to=
=20
only allow predefined configurations. I think I made it rather easy to ad=
d=20
new configurations, but the main point was to let a user compile sablevm=20
easily. Not all users will be developers, and most of them propably don't=
=20
know a lot about the different configurations. I suspect that most users,=
=20
given the choice, will opt for the fastest version of sablevm, not even=20
bothering to look at what makes it faster. I think my script is not all a=
ll=20
what sablevm-developers want to have, but again this was not the goal.=20
Grzegorz's script is much better for that.

Anyway, I have no objection to merging both scripts, although I think tha=
t we=20
could have one version (closer in spirit to what I have done) in the=20
"official" sablevm package and one (closer to Grzegorz's) in the CVS. Thi=
s=20
way, developers would have what they want, and sablevm users too.

Cheers,

	Bruno

On February 24, 2003 07:26 am, Chris Pickett wrote:
> you guys can work something
> out. =A0I think the various sablevm builds should not be built into the
> script itself, but only the different options passable to configure (it
> would be nice to see one letter abbreviations though, like SDIGTB for
> switch, direct, inlined, GC, traditional, bidirectional). =A0 Rather, t=
he
> user can invoke the script specifying how many different builds and wit=
h
> what options. =A0If they like, this can go in a secondary script. =A0Th=
e
> main purpose is to simplify the autoconf routine, as well as handling
> CVS and .tar.gz distributions. =A0I don't know, I'm rambling.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris