Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 11/8/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Ivan Volosyuk < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 07 Nov 2006 14:35:55 +0600, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> > > I already have one idea how to benefit from movable vtables.
>
>
> There would have to be a very compelling argument for making
vtables
> movable. Like a business workload that Harmony needs to run
within the
> next
> 12 months.
How would a business workload need this directly?
That's the point. I can't figure out any compelling story for moving
vtables. As far as I can tell, its over-engineering. I would love
to be proven wrong.
But isn't this simply an implementation detail of something that is
important, namely the class unloading?
geir
While it did come up as an issue in the class-unloading talks I think
most of us believe it to be orthogonal.
cheers
--
Robin Garner
Dept. of Computer Science
Australian National University
