This is the mail archive of the java-patches@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: Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization

From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:22:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization
References: <8765c3abdx.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404191557260.19041-100000@ops2.one-point.com> <16516.12937.810042.790267@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>

Andrew Haley wrote:

I guess I don't really agree with Tom about this. I can see no obvious reason why we should ever want to compile java.* using indirect dispatch, and at least one strong efficiency reason why we shouldn't. If anyone knows how using indirect dispatch will make the core libgcj work better, I'm upen to being persuaded.

One reason is that the shared library loading can be made much more efficient with the BC-ABI. Far less symbol relocations, and read-only/pointer free metadata will result in a smaller .so and reduce startup time.

Regards

Bryce.

References:
- Re: Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: Patch: replace mutex with object synchronization
  - From: Andrew Haley

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