This is the mail archive of the
java-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: V3 ABI
- To: apbianco at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: V3 ABI
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 07 Dec 2000 17:35:45 -0700
- Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>, java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <OFD15F4B7E.B69F46AA-ON882569A7.007B49F4@diversifiedsoftware.com> <877l5lt2b9.fsf@creche.cygnus.com> <3A27205A.46C9F39E@albatross.co.nz> <87itp4spvl.fsf@creche.cygnus.com> <14896.10287.530632.892870@deliverance.cygnus.com>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>> Another would be to add dummy virtual functions to Object whose
>> slots would then be abused to hold the extra info.
Alex> Would we only change java/lang/Object.h?
We would also have to change gcj to know about the dummy virtual
functions in Object.
Alex> As I read Hans, this would be safer and easier for the GC (no
Alex> modifications required.) This would also be easier for the
Alex> run-time (no modifications required as far as the vtable
Alex> business goes.)
Me too.
>> This is relatively ugly.
Alex> It's the safest option we have at this time. I'd like to go with
Alex> it, if no one strongly opposes to this option.
As long as we document it with a lot of comments in Object.h, I have
no objection.
Alex> I'd like reuse the C++ code for our mangling purposes. If it's
Alex> possible, I'd like to create a libcxx.a or libcxxmangling.a that
Alex> we would link to jc1.
This sounds great to me. We used to have a mangling divergence or two
from the C++ compiler. If we shared the implementation this would be
less likely.
Tom