Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 10/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mikhail Fursov wrote:
>
> 6)
>> Does GCV4 work with jit_gc.diff?
>
>
> Yes. The rootset reported by JIT is the same. The only change is that
> instead of the method 'enumerate(mptr, base)' JIT uses the method
> 'enumerate(mptr, offset)' that was used before only for mptrs with
static
> offsets (offsets known during compilation of a method)
Why do we care abouve GCv4?
Well, if I remember correctly, we decided to have GCV4 and GCV4.1 both
build
and run smoke tests. Perhaps this has changed and I simply did not know.
I guess we could, but the point I thought was keeping v4 around as we
figured out what v4.1 was about. Now that we have v5, and v4.1 seems
reasonable, I'm happy to look forward.
> 7)
>> Instead of applying jit_gc.diff what about applying
>> retrieve_root_set.diff?
>> If it is now too hard to rollback SVN, how about reopening JIRA1862
and
>> also
>> applying retrieve_root_set.diff also? The rationale is that there has
>> not
>> been adequate discussion on modifying the semantics of JIT/GC
interface.
>
>
> I vote not to rollback JIT patch. JIT is more flexible with this patch
> without any additional cost. The code is slightly increased (4-6
lines)
> but
> it makes debugging simpler :)
This is good. I had no way of knowing this without asking. Its good this
is on record.
> 8)
>> Note that retrieve_root_set.diff does not impact JIT/VM/GC
>> interfaces. It
>> is only local to gcv4.1. Also note retrieve_root_set.diff patch line
>> count
>> is 13 and jit_gc.diff line count is 179.
>
>
> In the JIT patch I cleaned unused enumeration methods from JIT
interface,
> added comments and replaced the one large loop with two of smaller
> size(precaching, reporting). The real number of new lines is less than
10.
>
> So IMO the correct fix for this problem is in the trunk. GC has
cmd-line
> option to disable object moving during the enumeration and it's enough.
Weldon, clearly this modification is a problem for you. Why?
Because the above questions had not been asked or answered. I thought it
was the job of a committer to ask questions about what they are going to
commit.
Yes, sure, but it seems like you're dancing around a question. I'm
happy to roll this back if there's something wrong with it.
I have zero problem with the commit as long as it does not imply a
change to
the interface between JIT/GC/VM. I suspect Xiao Feng will find no problems
with the commit. Xiao Feng, please comment.
If there is a change, what is it and why is it bad?
geir
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
