Re: Patch: Linker + Verifier fixes

[Robert Schuster <theBohemian at gmx dot net>]

Hi,
sorry for being mute, I was ill this weekend and could not do any computer work.

As far as I understood I should replace the current byte-Array hack with
RawData. ATM I am not sure how that has to look but I will look out for other
places where this is used and/or ask aph on IRC if I get stuck.

cya
Robert

Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> 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
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature