This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: FYI: Linker & Verifier fixes (really GC mark procedures)
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans dot boehm at hp dot com>
- Cc: "Bryce McKinlay" <mckinlay at redhat dot com>, "Robert Schuster" <theBohemian at gmx dot net>, <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:45:01 +0000
- Subject: RE: FYI: Linker & Verifier fixes (really GC mark procedures)
- References: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D8658266C1BC4@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Boehm, Hans writes:
> I haven't been following the details here, but some of the suggested
> directions scare me a bit.
>
> The present issue aside, I think we're in general far better off
> allocating collectable memory for anything that interacts with the
> collector, and making the mark descriptors conservative, and eventually
> correct. (If we know that fields will contain either small integers or
> pointers, just allocating it as potentially pointer-containing would
> also currently work fine.) Certainly I think we should be moving in
> that direction.
>
> The code in _Jv_MarkObj that directly traces objects referenced from
> class objects (instead of pushing them on the mark stack) is on very
> thin ice. That's not how mark procedures are supposed to work. In my
> opinion, if we could make it go away, that would be great.
Indeed. I have a patch in the pipeline that causes all objects of
class Class to be properly allocated rather than statically allocated
by the linker. In turn, this has the potential to make _Jv_MarkObj
eventually go away.
Andrew.