From: Tim Wilkinson (tim@transvirtual.com)
Date: Tue Sep 15 1998 - 12:39:44 EDT
Godmar,
Throwing some extemely trivial examples at the compiler seems to demonstrate
that it
won't loose the base point for objects - but this is hardly conclusive ...
actually I can't make it do
it from C either (unless I use pointers which I increment ... and you can't
do that in Java anyhow).
Tim
Godmar Back wrote:
> Does GCJ give you any support for write-barriers at this time?
>
> Also, is GCJ gc-safe? That is, is it ensured that a pointer to the
> beginning of an object can always be found on the stack for live objects?
>
> It would not be gc-safe if there would be a situation when due to
> optimization only derived values to a live object were held,
> such as a pointer into the middle of an object.
>
> - Godmar
>
> >
> > Hmm, just discovered that GCJ doesn't handle the synchronized keyword
> > when applied to methods ... not good in the IO and AWT sub-systems.
> >
> > Ah well - will try to find out when it'll happen.
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> > Tim Wilkinson Tel: +1 510 704 1660
> > Transvirtual Technologies, Inc., Fax: +1 510 704 1893
> > Berkeley, CA, USA. Email: tim@transvirtual.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
-- Tim Wilkinson Tel: +1 510 704 1660 Transvirtual Technologies, Inc., Fax: +1 510 704 1893 Berkeley, CA, USA. Email: tim@transvirtual.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:56:57 EDT