> > > I would like the vmdata field type then to be VMClass not Object.
> > > > I disagree, as it imposes a restriction on what vmData actually
> > is. The most obvious implementation of vmData is to be a byte[]
> > instance holding the byte of a native pointer to an internal VM
> > non-moveable data structure.
> > I'm glad to see we agree (although I don't think it's at all obvious
> that it should be a byte[], not all VMs use native code).
Eeeh. I can't imagine that either. If there's a strong argument for holding native pointer in a byte[] ?
Here's my thinking on this topic. Warning: may not apply to you :-)
Object is good because it is automatically the size of a pointer on any platform. However, it has one significant disadvantage, which is that you must special case all such fields in your garbage collector (unless you have a conservative collector). byte[] avoids this problem.
I remember kaffe had a kaffe.util.Pointer reference type that did this, and was specially recognized by the GC. Slightly better than Object imho.
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
