My indentation is messed up, but it's too late to correct it..
On 10/12/06, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/12/06, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3) The problem: Is the signature for gc_alloc method : gc_alloc(int > > objSize, > > > int allocationHandle) is universal for all GCs? > > > I think it's not. But we can extend JIT with different signatures > > support if > > > needed. > > > >
Why is this a problem, am I misunderstanding? Even with conventional helpers, the jit needs to know the helper method signatures. We don't need to worry about universality of GC's. Any compatible GC will need to implement exactly the same helper fastpath contract interface as Xiao Feng says elsewhere.
> 5) The magic code in does not contain 'finalizable' check. > > > JIT can do this check during the compilation and do not generate the > > fast > > > path. This is another option to pass to JIT from GC. > > > > Yes, this is good. Let's drop the allocationHandle. I am not using it in > > GCv5. > >
I don't think that the jit needs to know that an object being finalizable implies not to invoke the fastpath. This to me suggests that the jit determines allocation policy. I don't see a problem passing the object typeinfo or allocation handle to the helper. It is needed for object init anyway. Getting rid of the TLS parameter on the other hand, is a good idea.
