harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: VM/Class Library Interface (or "Storming the Gates! Take 3!")
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:31:31 GMT
>>>>> "Graeme" == Graeme Johnson <Graeme_Johnson@ca.ibm.com> writes:

Graeme> Split-class (ClassX & VMClassX) or customized-class solutions (Tim E's 
Graeme> Kernel classes) are different approaches to solving the same problem. 
Graeme> Of the two approaches I believe that the customized-class solution 
Graeme> delivers simpler code and shorter call-paths as it avoids the need for 
Graeme> any runtime redirection.

Graeme> Also, if you ever need to change class shape (e.g. add an extra long 
Graeme> field to point at a C structure) you're basically forced into the 
Graeme> customized-class solution.  Why not stick to one technique?

FWIW we continue to do both approaches in Classpath -- different VMs
do different things.  In particular in gcj we replace some of the core
classes like Class and String with our own versions.  The difficulty
here is that bug fixes to the shared code must be manually merged.
This turns out to be more work than we originally thought it would be;
in general these days I try to push us to follow Classpath more
closely for this reason.

Tom

Mime
View raw message