This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: class metadata (was Re: GCJ information)
- From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Cc: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, tromey at redhat dot com, Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>, "'java at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 14:59:21 +1300
- Subject: Re: class metadata (was Re: GCJ information)
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10112140955270.19272-100000@mars.deadcafe.org>
Jeff Sturm wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>Due to the class initialization test, we always have a class
>pointer anyway. Accessing the static fields via a fixed offset from the
>class pointer is likely to be cheaper than what we do now (i.e. no
>relocation entry or GOT offset required for PIC code).
>
>But how ugly would it be to make the c++ frontend do the right thing, i.e.
>transform ::foo::bar::value into ::foo::bar::class$.value?
>
I'm not sure - but I'll probibly get a better feel for it when I make
(or try to make ;-) CNI support indirect-dispatch.
regards
Bryce.