Yes, I think so. It would be nice to get Xiao Feng's confirmation of this. On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Yuan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alexei, > Thanks for your answer. Can I understand this problem in this way: > -----at the current edition of harmony, an Partial_Reveal_Object > pointer is just casted from a ManagedObject pointer, and the purpose of the > duplicate declaration of the struct is to minimize dependency between gc > and > vmcore because in the future the two structs may have different > declarations. > > 2009/2/19 Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> > > > Yuan, > > The intention of this construct is to minimize dependency between gc > > and vmcore limiting interfaces to C-type ones. If you changed layout > > of fields, you should update GC struct. If you only changed vt > > functions, then probably the problem is in other place. > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Yuan Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have found that the declaration of struct ManagedObject and the > > > declaration of struct Partial_Reveal_Object are alomost the same. The > > only > > > difference is that struct ManagedObject is used in vmcore, and struct > > > Partial_Reveal_Object is used in gc, so I have a question: "Does a > > > Partial_Reveal_Object pointer in gc always points to an ManagedObject > > object > > > in vmcore?". Because I have modified the declaration of struct > > ManagedObject > > > for some purpose, so if the answer to my question is "yes", I also have > > to > > > modify other codes to make gc run right? > > > > > > I appreciated any help from you! > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > С уважением, > > Алексей Федотов, > > http://people.apache.org/~aaf/ <http://people.apache.org/%7Eaaf/> < > http://people.apache.org/%7Eaaf/> > > > -- С уважением, Алексей Федотов, http://people.apache.org/~aaf/
