From: Stephen Kell <srk31@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Bryce McKinlay <bmckinlay@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>, java@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: CNI and interface methods
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:54:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090403185355.1ba66c55@ernest-2.christs.cam.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7230133d0904030328o55069f0do9147f879bcbd5e4f@mail.gmail.com>
> Actually we did implement a rather limited form of interface calls in
> CNI. Interfaces types are described in CNI headers with __attribute__
> ((java_interface)), and the C++ compiler knows how to call a method
> on a type declared as such.
>
> What is missing in the C++ compiler (and the CNI headers) is
> knowledge of interface inheritance, so you have to manually cast
> interface references if the method you want to call was declared in a
> super-interface.
>
> This limitation is described here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcj/Interfaces.html
Thanks for this. I'm fine with that limitation, but there seems to be a
second thing missing too (missing in the same sense, i.e. that it
requires casts that ideally wouldn't be there). The question was: from
the C++ side, given a pointer p to some object implementing interface
J, is it safe to pass that pointer to a Java method who CNI prototype
looks like, for example,
void foo(J *arg);
or not? Clearly from C++ we can't do
foo(p);
because it won't type-check; but we can do the following.
foo((J*) p);
It now appears the answer is "yes, this is okay" (whereas I'd been
worried that maybe some multiple-inheritance-style pointer adjustment
was not being done and was causing the segfaults I was seeing).
The CNI docs should probably say that these casts are fine and
indeed required. I'll gladly submit a small patch to the docs if you
agree (and let me know where's best for me to send it).
Stephen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-03 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-02 19:38 Stephen Kell
2009-04-03 8:37 ` Andrew Haley
2009-04-03 10:35 ` Bryce McKinlay
[not found] ` <7230133d0904030328o55069f0do9147f879bcbd5e4f@mail.gmail.com>
2009-04-03 10:44 ` Andrew Haley
2009-04-03 18:54 ` Stephen Kell [this message]
2009-04-03 19:06 ` David Daney
2009-04-04 9:12 ` Andrew Haley
2009-04-03 13:57 ` Stephen Kell
2009-04-03 14:13 ` Andrew Haley
2009-04-03 18:42 ` Stephen Kell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-04-01 0:00 Oskar Liljeblad
2000-04-01 0:00 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090403185355.1ba66c55@ernest-2.christs.cam.ac.uk \
--to=srk31@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=bmckinlay@gmail.com \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).