Re: Patch for Review: _Jv_TempUTFString + JV_TEMP_UTF_STRING

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@mckinlay.net.nz> writes:
 > 
 > Bryce> I'd still like to see it use JvAllocBytes instead of
 > Bryce> _Jv_Malloc.
 > 
 > I'm curious to know why.
 > 
 > I used to be against using _Jv_Malloc, but there is plenty of code
 > that uses it (and some code that relies on it, since the interface to
 > the GC isn't rich enough to tell it about things other than java
 > objects).  In a case like this, malloc/free is definitely safe.
 > Performance probably depends on the case.  So I've come to tolerate
 > _Jv_Malloc after all :-)

I disagree, because the gain of not using the garbage collector is
fairly small, and it's quite possible that if we work on the gc the
difference will be even smaller.

But yes, this thing isn't worth arguing about right now.

Andrew.