This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:05:04 -0400
Subject: Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
References: <17503.49765.690114.703640@dell.pink> <17503.51296.133408.269600@dell.pink> <17505.1352.579853.577984@dell.pink> <4460EE03.2030501@redhat.com> <m37j4u51h3.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Tom Tromey writes:
 > Bryce> Instead of duplicating it, couldn't this code actually be shared with
 > Bryce> the interpreter?
 > 
 > This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me.
 > It is nice when we can reduce the number of cases in the linker -- it
 > is already super complex.

Like I said, it's semantically different.  In the interpreted case,
the initializers are constant pool indexes, in the compiled case
they're direct pointers.

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Tom Tromey

References:
- RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: RFC: Tell do_allocate_static_fields which fields to allocate
  - From: Tom Tromey

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]