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] |
Am Mit, den 28.04.2004 schrieb Tom Tromey um 18:26:
Anthony> If we're primarily interested in identifying protection"Anthony" == Anthony Green <green@redhat.com> writes:
Anthony> domains, are there some short cuts we can make? For
Anthony> instance, can we just map .so's to protection domains, and
Anthony> then simply identify which .so a PC is associated with
Anthony> (rather than go all they way down to the class level).
Interesting. I could imagine treating this special Classes inside GCJ different would surely drastically improve performance. Performing the security checks very efficient is very important. I think the number of ProtectionDomains (at least when thinking about it) is roughly the number of entries of grants in the policy file. So this is not as high and perhaps could be even stored as some few bit bitmap in the class header. But I don't know whether thats a good idea. (Perhaps to smalltalkish)
What worries me more, though is how to make a distinction between code
that comes from java sources and code that comes from c/c++/asm. The
only party that knows that is the compiler.
It would be interesting if the compiler could put the start and the end adress (pc) (perhaps relative adress, for relocation and so on) of the methods that were written in java in a write protected memory area (in the constant region).
Btw: What does _Jv_ThisExecutable ();
return for shared objects ?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |