This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Patch: initialize ProcessManager early
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
- Cc: GCJ-patches <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
- Date: 15 Feb 2007 16:09:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: Patch: initialize ProcessManager early
- References: <m37iuj174i.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <45D4F084.1030203@avtrex.com>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "David" == David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> writes:
David> 1) Programs that never directly or indirectly do Runtime.exec() are
David> now burdened with the weight of an extra thread.
David> 2) Startup time for all programs will now be slower because this extra
David> thread is created sooner that it used to be.
Yeah, good points.
I'm not sure what else to do though.
My Plan B was to rearrange startup so that the user thread is not the
primary thread. Then libgcj worker threads would not descend from the
user thread, circumventing this problem.
But for this approach to work, we have to start another new thread
anyway.
Hmm, maybe I could make the ProcessManager thread a child of the
finalizer thread. That might work.
Tom