"is now implemented" it was supposed to be written. :)
On 3/21/07, Pavel Pervov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is indirectly used in the NSO for Class.newInstance. But this code is
not currently executed, since Class.newInstance is not implemented in
Java.
WBR,
Pavel.
On 3/21/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel, Thanks for your reply.
>
> Would let me know how NEXT_TO_HIGH_BIT is used currently in DRLVM? Or
> in other words, what functionalities are dependent on
> NEXT_TO_HIGH_BIT?
>
> Thanks,
> xiaofeng
>
> On 3/21/07, Pavel Pervov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Xiao-Feng,
> >
> > All the infructructure is in place. It is just do not work at the
> moment.
> > As Class.newInstance is not native, NSO does not replace it's
> implementation
> > with VM's stub.
> > If NEXT_TO_HIGH_BIT-supporting code is to be removed, the rest of the
> code
> > (NSO implementations for ia32 and ia64) has to be removed altogether
> to not
> > provoke any errors in the future.
> >
> > Does removing NSO overrides for Class.newInstance look reasonable for
> you?
> >
> > WBR,
> > Pavel.
> >
> > On 3/21/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > If no one objects, I will try to remove this flag in DRLVM.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > xiaofeng
> > >
> > > On 3/21/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi, the source code for class preparation calls
> > > > set_instance_data_size_constraint_bit() for three situations:
> special
> > > > alignment requirement, having finalizer, and to be pinned. And the
> > > > comments there say the constraint bit is for GC to understand.
> > > >
> > > > But current GC actually doesn't care about this bit, and simply
> masks
> > > > it off. Does anybody know what are the situations for the size
> > > > constraint bit to be set for allocation?
> > > >
> > > > I recall this kind of constraint bit was ORP legacy, when the
> > > > intention was for gc_alloc_fast to be really fast, avoiding any
> > > > special allocation treatment. So once the big flag is set,
> > > > gc_alloc_fast will simply return NULL, and the VM will invoke
> gc_alloc
> > > > to accomplish the allocation.
> > > >
> > > > Now DRLVM has different processing, and the GC doesn't use the
> flag in
> > > > size for allocation. I wonder what is the real purpose of this
> size
> > > > flag in allocation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > xiaofeng
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pavel Pervov,
> > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> >
>
--
Pavel Pervov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
--
Pavel Pervov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
