Andrew Haley wrote: > David Holmes writes: > > That was my initial thought but the generalization is > trivial and useful. > > For example, given the XXX/VMxxx split having only > getCallerClass wouldn't > > allow XXX to defer to VMxxx and have VMxxx find the real caller. > > Perhaps we don't need to defer to VMxxx if we have a portable way to > do getCallerClass.
I don't see how. My desire to have a getCallerClass is because I want to be able to support method inlining properly. If the JIT knows about getCallerClass, it can do the right thing. The generalization is not inline proof. I don't particularly care where it lives though, because I'm likely to ignore the implementation and let the JIT emit some magic when this method is called. Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
