2009/8/17 Vegard Nossum <[email protected]>:
> 2009/8/17 Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 19:36 +0200, Tomek Grabiec wrote:
>>> 2009/8/17 Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>:
>>> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 15:38 +0200, Tomek Grabiec wrote:
>>> >> We need to assign access flags for arrays and primitive classes which
>>> >> have no corresponding cafebabe_class. Therefore ->access_flags field is
>>> >> introduced for struct vm_class.
>>> >>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Tomek Grabiec <[email protected]>
>>> >
>>> > I'd rather we didn't make struct vm_object bigger than it already is.
>>> > Can't we introduce dummy struct vm_classes for arrays and primitive
>>> > classes?
>>> >
>>>
>>> My patch does not increase size of struct vm_object. It increases size
>>> of struct vm_class.
>>
>> ...oh, I am just blind! Applied, thanks!
>
> BTW, which flags are those?
>
My patch sets flags the same way as jamvm (and hotspot) does:
- for primitive types: ACC_PUBLIC + ACC_ABSTRACT + ACC_FINAL
- for array types: ACC_ABSTRACT + ACC_FINAL + (flags for element class
- ACC_INTERFACE)
While writing regression test I noticed that jato sets flags
differently from hotspot for *internal* class:
private static class X {
};
Jato sets no flags (0), while hotspot sets ACC_PRIVATE | ACC_STATIC
(0xa). However, this bug (?) is not related
to my patch.
--
Tomek Grabiec
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Jatovm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jatovm-devel
