This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Kill a static constructor in boehm-gc
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- Subject: Re: Kill a static constructor in boehm-gc
- From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> With this patch LD_PROFILE=libgcj.so.2 finally doesn't crash! This means
> we can profile libgcj!!
That's great news. So libgcj is finally a well-behaved DSO...
> Well, nearly, since unfortunatly LD_PROFILE doesn't understand virtual
> calls.
Why is that? Do virtual calls not involve the PLT?
> I'm guessing this might be easy to fix
> however if RTH adds the generic stack unwind facility to GCC that he was
> talking about a while back?
Do you have a pointer to this? I don't recall the discussion.
Another approach could be to replace the current vtable with a jump table.
Each slot could jump to a ordinary function call. That would also help
with lazy binding (i.e. startup overhead). Someone on the GCC list
dismissed this approach for C++, since it would prevent meaningful
comparison of method pointers. But that doesn't matter to gcj or Java.
Jeff