This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Get libffi closures to cope with SELinux execmem/execmod
On Jan 26, 2007, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@hp.com> wrote:
> f) Register all Java finalizable objects with a finalize_mark_proc that
> traces the class, but nothing else?
This won't work. Consider that O1 is not an instance of P, but rather
an instance of a subclass, or even an instance of an unrelated class
whose constructor instantiates P. At the point you start requiring
special semantics in finalizable objects, you need to apply it to
every object and class reachable from them, and then you violate the
Java requirements or you still don't get the normal finalization
semantics for objects in the frontier between Java finalization and
normal finalization.
> This effectively states that object finalizers need the corresponding
> classes to stay around until the object finalizer has completed.
It would be just a (failed) hack to try to work around a real problem
in boehm-gc.
Basically, the current implementation doesn't offer the documented
semantics at all when there are Java objects involved, and I'm
convinced there's no way to offer the proper semantics without the new
primitive I've added. The only doubt in my mind is whether it needs
to be a separate primitive, or if we should fix the behavior of the
existing primitive as to adopt the fixed semantics when Java
finalization semantics are in use.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}