ASM and gnu.bytecode

Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim at redhat.com
Sun Nov 26 16:39:45 UTC 2006


Audrius Meskauskas wrote:
> Only part of RMIC (direct bytecode generation) is really dependent from 
> ASM. That part which supports the source code generation is not 
> dependent, was a separate compiler in the past and can be easily 
> separated apart again. If we do not like ASM, this should make using the 
> alternative replacement easier, as only the bytecode generating part 
> needs to be rewritten. The classes being generated are also relatively 
> simple.

The direct bytecode generation is needed for performance and 
compatibility reasons.  If ASM is replaced with gnu.bytecode, then the 
direct bytecode generation RMIC should be ported rather than removed.

FWIW, porting from ASM 1.x to ASM 2.x was not very involved, and the 
update from 2.x to 3.x was even more trivial:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/cp-tools-discuss/2006-03/msg00000.html

I'm not sure trivial porting work between versions warrants an all-out 
replacement.

Tom



More information about the Classpath mailing list