harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Wed, 18 May 2005 17:43:10 GMT
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Blackburn <Steve.Blackburn@anu.edu.au> writes:

Steve> There is no need for any function call on the fast path of the
Steve> allocation sequence.
[ ... ]

Steve> However this is small fry compared to the importance of compiling
Steve> write barriers correctly (barriers are used by most high performance
Steve> GCs and are executed far more frequently than allocations).
[ ... ]

Steve> Modularization does not imply any of this.

I wanted to mention a few things on what modularity is not.

Just because we have some tunable knob, it does not imply that we must
support all possible settings of that knob.  And, likewise, we are not
compelled to support every possible combination of settings of all the
knobs.  Finally, modularity does not imply that all aspects of the VM
will be selectable at runtime.  It is completely reasonable to require
compile-time choices.

So, in this case, it isn't as if we would have to design an allocation
interface that allows all possible choices.  It can merely allow the
subset we know to be immediately usable.

Tom

Mime
View raw message