This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Java: array clean up and store check optimization
Alexandre Petit-Bianco wrote:
>>bootstrapped and regtested on i686 and PowerPC Linux. OK to commit?
>>
>
>This is a really interesting patch, thanks a lot for writing it. My
>only concerns is that in the past we had problems with recognizing
>arrays constructs in certain situations, with or without bound checks,
>when generating bytecodes or going natives, etc...
>
>Some of these are in our test suite. My question is, where you able to
>run regressions, testing the combinations of the new flags?
>
The test suite runs without regressions in the default mode on i686
linux. The --no-store-check and --no-bounds-check will of course cause
failures for test cases which rely on proper JLS compliance, but I've
tested the 3 combinations of these flags on quite a few apps and it they
seem to work fine. I did find a couple of obscure array bugs while
testing (these are in the test suite as ArrayStore.java and
ArrayStore2.java), but they existed before this patch.
I have tested byte->native compilation too, and the patch should not
effect source->byte at all.
>>Index: lang-options.h
>>===================================================================
>>RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/java/lang-options.h,v
>>retrieving revision 1.28
>>diff -c -r1.28 lang-options.h
>>*** lang-options.h 2001/08/09 04:19:12 1.28
>>--- lang-options.h 2002/02/20 00:58:06
>>...
>>***************
>>*** 54,56 ****
>>--- 56,60 ----
>> N_("Always check for non gcj generated classes archives") },
>> { "-fno-optimize-static-class-initialization",
>> N_("Never optimize static class initialization code") },
>>+ { "-findirect-dispatch",
>>+ N_("Use offset tables for virtual method calls") },
>>
>
>Does this hunk belong to this patch?
>
Not really, this is a missing help string from a previous patch.
regards
Bryce.