This is the mail archive of the
java-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Jv_AllocBytesChecked (Was: What is wrong with Vector?)
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- Subject: Re: Jv_AllocBytesChecked (Was: What is wrong with Vector?)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 22 Dec 2000 00:04:28 -0700
- Cc: "'java-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com'" <java-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- References: <140D21516EC2D3119EE700902787664401E3A7D9@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Hans" == Boehm, Hans <hans_boehm@hp.com> writes:
Hans> If you combine them orthogonally, you naturally end up with four
Hans> kinds of locks, where my current scheme gives you two. In spite
Hans> of that, I believe that you could perhaps do it orthogonally.
Thanks. I'm not overly concerned about doing this. I just wondered
what the tradeoffs were.
Hans> I should look at this more. My impression is that's hard to do,
Hans> because we don't have a second header word that we could point
Hans> at the stack allocated structure.
I think EF uses a single word, by having a bit or two reserved to
indicate state. Then whatever extra info is needed is stashed on the
stack.
Hans> I also though that there was a Sun patent on some of this?
I honestly don't know.
Tom