Re: gcj-security and some issues

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Anthony Green writes:
 > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 07:38, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > I don't see how that would help.  We already have a efficient method
 > > for mapping a PC address to a class, so going from there to a
 > > protection domain is just one more memory fetch. 
 > 
 > I was just thinking: shorter binary search, and smaller meta-data.

That's true, of course.

But: we're using the DWARF unwinder, and that has to locate the start
of each function on the stack in order to unwind.  Once we have the
exact start address of a function, going from there to a class is a
small step -- a single hash table lookup.  Bryce's idea of putting the
class in the unwinder data would make it slightly faster, because we
wouldn't need the hash table.

Andrew.