This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: overhead of reflection info

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, "Boehm, Hans" <hans dot boehm at hp dot com>, Adam Megacz <adam at megacz dot com>, <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:46:16 +0000
Subject: Re: overhead of reflection info
References: <87brnnt4ng.fsf@fleche.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0402251339020.32207-100000@ops2.one-point.com>

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > On 25 Feb 2004, Tom Tromey wrote:
 > > >>>>> "Hans" == Boehm, Hans <hans.boehm@hp.com> writes:
 > >
 > > Hans> There is a claim in _Jv_MarkObj comments that some data
 > > Hans> structures referenced from class objects are allocated
 > > Hans> pointerfree (even though they are not?) but then traced
 > > Hans> correctly by _Jv_MarkObj.  If this is indeed still correct, this
 > > Hans> would have to be looked at carefully.
 > >
 > > Oh, yeah -- _Jv_MarkObj is always used for Class objects.
 > 
 > But only classes loaded from bytecode, right?  Those might not matter for
 > a minimal runtime stripped of reflection info, interpreter, etc.
 > 
 > I think compiled classes are still traced conservatively.

No they're not -- the bitmap is generated by the compiler.  See
mark_reference_fields() in java/boehm.c.

Andrew.

References:
- Re: overhead of reflection info
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: overhead of reflection info
  - From: Jeff Sturm

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]