harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robin Garner <Robin.Gar...@anu.edu.au>
Subject Re: half-baked idea? j2me
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:38:05 GMT
Archie Cobbs wrote:

> Robin Garner wrote:
>
>> Actually my colleagues at ANU and I were remarking last week that all 
>> the recent discussion on the Harmony list (configure scripts, packed 
>> structs etc etc) were close to being proof that Java was the easier 
>> way to go.
>
>
> Here's some idle speculating about writing a JVM in Java...
>
> Start by asking this question: if you could design a new language
> expressly for the purpose of implementing JVM's, what would that
> language look like?
>
> Java is almost the right language.. but not quite. You need to
> be able to do C-like stuff as well.
>
> One can imagine something that is mostly like Java, but has some
> additional features that allows C like functionality, for example:
>
> - Augment the Java type system with C-like "structs". These are
>   like Java objects in that they can be allocated on the Java heap
>   (as an option) but have no Object header (you can't synchronize
>   on them directly and they have no associated Class). Then the
>   in-memory representation of an Object is a special case of one
>   of these structures, containing a lockword and vtable pointer.
>
> - Define a new "word" primitive type that corresponds to the
>   machine-specific word size (i.e., 32 or 64 bit unsigned int).
>   Corresponds to SableVM's _svm_word and JC's _jc_word.
>
> - Language would include primitives for compare-and-swap of a word,
>   memory barriers, etc.
>
> - The language would include the ability to cast between any types
>   as you can do in C (e.g., struct -> Object, word -> Object pointer).
>
> - Allow C function calls to be expressed in the language, passing
>   as parameters any Java type, or a struct. This "compiles" directly
>   into a C function call using the platform's normal C calling
>   conventions.
>
> - Extend the class file format in a corresponding manner.
>
> Call this language "Java++" (or whatever). Then the 95% of the JVM
> can be written in this language.. and 95% of that would be normal Java.
>
This is exactly how we see the dialect of Java that MMTk is written in.  
The non-java extensions are the org.vmmagic classes.  The key difference 
is that our types are represented as 'unboxed' objects, which gives us 
more flexibility to define operations on them.

cheers

Mime
View raw message