Re: Patch: Linker + Verifier fixes

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Haley wrote:
>  > OK, it probably makes sense to use some hash structure to store the 
>  > closure data - in the event that we have a whole bunch of classes all 
>  > referencing the same missing class/method, then we can share just one 
>  > closure for each missing method. However, it seems to me that a 
>  > WeakHashMap won't do any good without custom marking code for class 
>  > anyway - else there is no way for the GC to determine when an entry in 
>  > the map becomes unreachable.
>
> An entry in the WeakHashMap becomes unreachable when the class that
> will use it becomes unreachable, surely.  So, the key is the class.
>   
Yes, but recall that we have a custom marking function for classes - so 
to implement this would require adding code to mark the keys in the 
WeakHashMap, otherwise the GC will always see them as unreachable. If we 
need to add custom mark code anyway, then the need for a WeakHashMap 
disappears.
> But it really doesn't matter ATM -- all we must have is some heap
> allocated memory that won't mysteriously disappear.
>   
Agreed.

Bryce