From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15547 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2006 17:16:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 15533 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2006 17:16:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mta09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:15:58 +0000 Received: from aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060426171555.KDBG27969.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:15:55 +0100 Received: from zapata.pink ([82.6.101.32]) by aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060426171555.WLQJ16286.aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@zapata.pink>; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:15:55 +0100 Received: from zapata.pink (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3QHFuAt004385; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:15:56 +0100 Received: (from aph@localhost) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k3QHFuZL004382; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:15:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17487.43724.19536.143323@zapata.pink> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: Bryce McKinlay Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Allocate Class instancs on heap; not conservatively scan DSOs In-Reply-To: <444FA867.8020307@redhat.com> References: <17487.12956.143801.971137@zapata.pink> <444FA867.8020307@redhat.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 Bryce McKinlay writes: > For a long time we've talked about putting the class data in a > pointer-free format, instead of storing them as static jclasses. It > looks like this patch has taken care of much of the hard work and will > make changing the class data format easier. Indeed it will, yes. > One suggestion - I think it would be good to make the comments a bit > more clear on which libgcj functions are called by the compiler to > register classes for the -findirect-classes case, and which are for the > non-indirect case. Its obvious from reading the patch why there is both > a _Jv_RegisterClasses and _Jv_RegisterNewClasses, but it may not be for > someone browsing the code later. That seems reasonable. > Also, the comment on emit_indirect_register_classes() doesn't look right > - it doesn't call _Jv_NewClassFromInitailizer directly. Oops. TVM for looking at this. Andrew.