class metadata (was Re: GCJ information)

[Bryce McKinlay]

Jeff Sturm wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
>>Yeah, thats another thing that will help out towards 
>>weak-linking/no-assume-compiled. In that case static fields would be 
>>accessed via a class pointer rather than C++ symbol.
>>
>
>Due to the class initialization test, we always have a class
>pointer anyway.  Accessing the static fields via a fixed offset from the
>class pointer is likely to be cheaper than what we do now (i.e. no
>relocation entry or GOT offset required for PIC code).
>
>But how ugly would it be to make the c++ frontend do the right thing, i.e.
>transform ::foo::bar::value into ::foo::bar::class$.value?
>

I'm not sure - but I'll probibly get a better feel for it when I make 
(or try to make ;-) CNI support indirect-dispatch.

regards

Bryce.