Apparently field_is_gc_enumerable() has it's customers, and reasonably shields them from unrelated low-level details - be it magics or some other vm-injected data. I'm OK to rename it to field_is_enumerable_reference() or any other name which is considered more descriptive. And what purpose do you see for the plain accessor field_is_reference()? Do we need field_is_primitive() and/or field_is_magic() also? Note there is already field_get_descriptor() which basically provides this kind of info. If we have no clear usecase, I'd prefer to keep interface smaller.
-- Alexey 2007/3/6, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I don't have a strong opinion. But is_reference is a field sematic, it may not matter who consumes it at the moment. Also, not implementing an interface is OK, but not because noone needs it, it is a constraint of the implementer. That's valid, but in that case, one needs to go away from Boolean and support a NOT_IMPLEMENT return value also. Sorry if I am sounding convoluted. Rana On 3/6/07, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > field_is_reference() was used only in GC and was not used by other code. > This is the reason why original 'field_is_reference' was not kept. > We can rename 'field_is_gc_enumerable' to 'field_is_enumerable_reference' > and do not implement field_is_reference() method (unless someone needs > it). > Does it makes sense? As for me both names are good. > > field_is_magic_addr() does not look good to me. It has too many details > about magics in its name, while the only knowledge we need today is to > know > if to enumerate a field or not. > > > On 3/6/07, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Good point. In fact, field attributes seem better connected to field > > semantics, not to GC requirements directly. Is it possible to retain > > field_is_reference() and add a field_is_magic_addr() ? Though there is > an > > implied inefficiency here, the semantics seem clearer.Are there other > > magic > > field types that could interfere? > > > > Thanks, > > Rana > > > > > > On 3/6/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, I found field_is_reference in original vm.h was changed to be > > > field_is_gc_enumerable. The declaration is: > > > > > > /** > > > * @return <code>TRUE</code> if the field must be enumerated by GC > > > * > > > * This function doesn't cause resolution of the class of the field. > > > */ > > > VMEXPORT Boolean field_is_gc_enumerable(Field_Handle fh); > > > > > > > > > I wonder what is the rationality to make this interface change. > > > > > > From reading the code, I guess this change was made due to the > > > implementation Magics. With Magics, a reference field may not always > > > be enumerated by the VM during garbage collection, such as Address > > > field in a Java helper. To change the function name to be > > > "field_is_gc_enumerable" might help the reader to know this fact. > > > > > > But I think this doesn't actually help, since the user of this > > > function will be confused about the type of the field, and need to > > > guess what kind of field is "gc enumerable". More importantly, the > > > semantics of this function are unclear: it hard-encodes the > > > Magics-related semantics into the low-level field accessors. > > > > > > I would suggest to keep the original field_is_reference interface > > > function in this vm.h file. It clearly tells if a field is reference > > > type. If we really want the field_is_gc_enumerable interface, we can > > > add it as a new one. We can use a new name like > > > "field_is_enumerable_reference", which is probably clearer. > > > > > > How about it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > xiaofeng > > > > > > > > > -- > Mikhail Fursov >
