values types for Java
Tue Oct 21 07:24:00 GMT 2003
Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> However I'm not keen on the idea of implementing this as a GCJ
> extension with some kind of hacked-up syntax. The benefits of something
> only supported by GCJ would be limited and the syntax would not make
> them elegant to use.
Note I'm not suggesting any syntax changes. I'm suggesting a
*convention* to make it easy for a compiler like GCJ to
implement a fully portable Java class as a stack-allocatable
value class instead of heap allocation. Both the Java source
code and the Java bytecodes would be portable Java, but compiling
to native code would use a different ABI.
> As Per suggested, the way forward would be to propose this as a JSR
> and take it from there.
On the other hand if we had a preliminary imlementation with some
performance numbers, that might be both a selling point for gcj,
and it might make it easier to justify a JSR.
* A test implementation in GCJ.
* Write up the feature and the results as an conference paper.
* Try to get it accepted at a suitable conference (OOPSLA,
the usenix JVM conference are the most obvious places).
* Use the paper (even if only web-published) to justify
forming a JSR.
The JCP is very company oriented. I don't know how difficult
it would be for an individual to sponsor a JSR, but a company
like (say) Red Hat certainly could.
More information about the Java