This is the mail archive of the java@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: class metadata (was Re: GCJ information)

Per Bothner wrote

> (We may want a separate per-class array for static fields, with the
> pointer fields (except for RawData) first, for the sake of GC.) 


Yeah, thats another thing that will help out towards 
weak-linking/no-assume-compiled. In that case static fields would be 
accessed via a class pointer rather than C++ symbol.

It would be interesting to know how long the GC spends scanning static 
roots, and if it would help much if class objects were the only static 
roots. That would place additional restrictions on CNI (dont keep Java 
references in fields not defined in Java) , but I don't think thats a 
big problem.

regards

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