From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 15:38:02 EST
That might work, too.
- Godmar
Forwarded message:
> From oliva@dcc.unicamp.br Fri Dec 11 13:33:01 1998
> Sender: oliva@araguaia.dcc.unicamp.br
> To: Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu>
> Cc: kaffe-core@rufus.w3.org
> Subject: Re: [CVS] commit
> References: <199812112025.NAA22008@sal.cs.utah.edu>
> From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
> Date: 11 Dec 1998 18:30:22 -0200
> In-Reply-To: Godmar Back's message of "Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:25:22 -0700 (MST)"
> Message-ID: <oru2z28lr5.fsf@araguaia.dcc.unicamp.br>
> Lines: 28
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.070064 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.64) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
> On Dec 11, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > Well, it will make some difference. I think the soft_instanceof calls
> >> > to check for thread classes add up.
>
> >> Wouldn't it be simpler to arrange that Thread.finalize() calls a
> >> native method (or is itself a native method) that does whatever we
> >> need to finalize a Thread? This would obviate the need for a second
> >> kind of test.
>
> > Nope. Relying on Thread.finalize is impossible because Thread is
> > not a final class and a subclass finalizer may not call super.finalize.
> > We fixed that a while ago. Thread still has a method declaration
> > `finalize0' in it that bears witness to this attempt.
>
> What if Thread contained an aggregate object like this:
>
> public class Thread {
> private finalizerObject = new Object() {
> void finalize() { Thread.this.finalize0(); /* sp? */ } }
> }
> // ...
> }
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
> oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
> Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:12 EDT