Re: Proposal for CNI/JNI problems

[Bernd Kreimeier <bk at lokigames dot com>]

Per Bothner writes:
 > of that with a direct field access in CNI.  Following that chain
 > can be difficult when (e.g.) a jfieldID is cached.  It may require
 > some global analysis (i.e. more than a single method).

That's what I meant. So, it should be easier to do the reverse
(expand CNI to JNI calls) but then ID caching and other
optimizations would have to be added automatically as well?

 > > If a hypothetical G++ "emit-jni" option would generate JNI C 
 > 
 > G++ emits assembly code, not C. -femit-jni would emit binary
 > code *equivalent* to JNI C (i.e. *as if* compiled from JNI C),
 > but not actually C.

I know that's the current proposal. Why is CNI-to-JNI C conversion
out of the question? It would address some issues (like
porting to non-G++ platforms, Hans Boehm's point (2), etc.).

 > Those are certainly important concerns.  We may have to settle
 > for conditional compilation in tricky cases. 

OK IMO. Now, wouldn't CNI-to-JNI C ease identifying related
problems? 

Is it significantly easier to map on assembly level?
There'd be little point in a C level conversion if this
inevitably led to "cfront-with-Java-structs" for mixed
C++/CNI code. Is that the case?

                                     b.