I like these type names: they are pretty short. I believe a
replacement of POINTER_SIZE_INT is the best thing to start with. From
the other side there are some things about portlib I don't understand,
namely, all calls have to go via a virtual table of portlib functions.
Why it is done in this way?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Alexey Varlamov
<alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those adopted in classlib
> (working_classlib\modules\portlib\src\main\native\include\shared\hycomp.h
> ):
>
> BOOLEAN, UDATA/IDATA, I_8/U_8 ... U_64/I_64
>
> --
> Alexey
>
> 2008/3/12, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
>
>
> > Alexey,
> > Which conventions have you decided to use for intercomponent interfaces?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Alexey Varlamov
> > <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks Pavel, this is a clear statement which I'm also advocating.
> > > Any implementation is free to use most suitable types internally, but
> > > there should be an agreement on types used in public interfaces. OS
> > > layer is mostly irrelevant here.
> > > So I see no objections to the suggested route, will start fixing
> > > VM-JIT interface soon.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey
> > >
> > >
> > > 2008/3/11, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Alexei,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to add my little coin here.
> > > >
> > > > We should use corresponding types in the places where they apply best.
> > > > JNI type system is a kind of external to Harmony.
> > > >
> > > > Probably, we should establish 1-1 type correspondense between JNI type
> > > > system and VM type system and only use JNI types in JNI implementation
> > > > itself (including helper functions) and convert these types as we
> > > > cross "JNI implementation" boundary. The same holds true for JVMTI
> > > > which shares type system with JNI.
> > > >
> > > > The same for OS layer. OS specific types shouldn't (and I hope won't)
> > > > be visible outside "porting layer".
> > > >
> > > > The rest of VM+class library can have single consistent type system
> > > > which is converted to "outside world" on interface boundaries of
> > > > runtime.
> > > >
> > > > WBR,
> > > > Pavel.
> > > >
> > > > On 3/11/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > This is a very interesting thread. Let me give more examples of
JNI
> > > > > pro and contra.
> > > > >
> > > > > * JNI is good for implementation of class library native functions,
> > > > > because their arguments are supplied in JNI form.
> > > > > * JNI is a good type system for java-based tools, plug-ins, etc.
> > > > > * JNI is desired to code java specific things like work with
> > > > > local/global references, class loading, finalization, jvmti. We
> > > > > usually put such staff in vmcore. (Class parsing may be an exception
> > > > > because even specification operates in a different notation. From
the
> > > > > other side I believe we should build our class parser on the top
of
> > > > > something like ASN.1 and get rid of this problem.)
> > > > >
> > > > > As for a current state of our code, I don't think JNI types are
good
> > > > > for JIT, Encoder, GC, and an execution manager. They consistently
use
> > > > > a different type system and I dream they become usable for other
> > > > > projects, so no need to force them being java specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for a porting layer, it consists of two types of functions:
> > > > > * OS and library calls: I believe we should just use *nix APIs
and
> > > > > types instead of wrappers and re-implement them for Windows like
> > > > > Cygwin does. First, this is now possible, and second, this just
gives
> > > > > us less wrappers.
> > > > > * Assembler wrappers (fences, atomics, monitor instructions,
etc):
> > > > > they are too far from java to use JNI. From the other side
> > > > > java.util.concurent mandates JNI atomics, so sometimes JNI is good
> > > > > even here.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Alexey Varlamov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Consistent type definition is definitely good. Btw,
what's the
> > > > > > > > POINTER_SIZE_INT counterpart in port library?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AFAIU
> > > > > > > POINTER_SIZE_INT == UDATA
> > > > > > > POINTER_SIZE_SINT == IDATA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see. Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -xiaofeng
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > With best regards,
> > > > > Alexei
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pavel Pervov,
> > > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei
> >
>
--
With best regards,
Alexei
|