FYI: Linker & Verifier fixes (really GC mark procedures)
Andrew Haley
aph@redhat.com
Wed Feb 1 18:43:00 GMT 2006
Boehm, Hans writes:
> I haven't been following the details here, but some of the suggested
> directions scare me a bit.
>
> The present issue aside, I think we're in general far better off
> allocating collectable memory for anything that interacts with the
> collector, and making the mark descriptors conservative, and eventually
> correct. (If we know that fields will contain either small integers or
> pointers, just allocating it as potentially pointer-containing would
> also currently work fine.) Certainly I think we should be moving in
> that direction.
>
> The code in _Jv_MarkObj that directly traces objects referenced from
> class objects (instead of pushing them on the mark stack) is on very
> thin ice. That's not how mark procedures are supposed to work. In my
> opinion, if we could make it go away, that would be great.
Indeed. I have a patch in the pipeline that causes all objects of
class Class to be properly allocated rather than statically allocated
by the linker. In turn, this has the potential to make _Jv_MarkObj
eventually go away.
Andrew.
More information about the Java-patches
mailing list