Thu May 8 14:15:00 GMT 2003
Ranjit Mathew writes:
> > I get the same. The failing test here was written since SPARC closures
> > were added to libffi.
> This might be a very dumb question to ask but I guess asking
> a dumb question is better than nodding in apparent comprehension
> and completely missing the significance: what *are* libffi
> closures and why is it such a big deal when a target gets
> I *vaguely* remember closures from my undergrad days and
> this page seems to agree with my memories:
> but how exactly are they significant for GCJ? I mean,
> without closures what does a target lack?
They're critical. libffi closures allow you to define an interpreted
function and then call that function as though it were machine code,
via a single pointer. That is, for every interpreted routine there is
a unique machine address that, when called, invokes the interpreted
Because of this, when an interpreted Java app invokes a method, the VM
does not need to distinguish between calling an interpreted method and
calling a compiled method.
> Is there much voodoo involved in implementing closures
> for a target that most initial ports of GCJ for a target
> come without it?
It's rather voodoo, yes.
More information about the Java