harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Griffiths <david.griffi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Wed, 18 May 2005 10:30:10 GMT
I think it's too slow to have the overhead of a function call for
every object allocation. This is the cost of modularization. I doubt
any of the mainstream JVMs you are competing with do this.

Cheers,

Dave

On 17 May 2005 18:27:42 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Griffiths <david.griffiths@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> David> Maybe a concrete example would help. Let's say you have a GC module
> David> written in C. One of it's API calls is to allocate a new object. How
> David> is your JIT module going to produce code to use that API? Via a C
> David> function pointer?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> One way is to mandate link- or compile-time pluggability only.  Then
> this can be done by name.  Your JIT just references
> '&harmony_allocate_object' in its source and uses this pointer
> in the code it generates.
> 
> The other way is to have the JIT call some central function to get a
> pointer to the allocator function (or functions, in libgcj it turned
> out to be useful to have several).  This only needs to be done once,
> at startup.
> 
> For folks interested in pluggability, I advise downloading a copy of
> ORP and reading through it.  ORP already solved these problems in a
> fairly reasonable way.
> 
> Tom
>

Mime
View raw message