2009/8/17 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nos...@gmail.com>: > 2009/8/17 Pekka Enberg <penb...@cs.helsinki.fi>: >> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 19:36 +0200, Tomek Grabiec wrote: >>> 2009/8/17 Pekka Enberg <penb...@cs.helsinki.fi>: >>> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 15:38 +0200, Tomek Grabiec wrote: >>> >> We need to assign access flags for arrays and primitive classes which >>> >> have no corresponding cafebabe_class. Therefore ->access_flags field is >>> >> introduced for struct vm_class. >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Tomek Grabiec <tgrab...@gmail.com> >>> > >>> > I'd rather we didn't make struct vm_object bigger than it already is. >>> > Can't we introduce dummy struct vm_classes for arrays and primitive >>> > classes? >>> > >>> >>> My patch does not increase size of struct vm_object. It increases size >>> of struct vm_class. >> >> ...oh, I am just blind! Applied, thanks! > > BTW, which flags are those? >
My patch sets flags the same way as jamvm (and hotspot) does: - for primitive types: ACC_PUBLIC + ACC_ABSTRACT + ACC_FINAL - for array types: ACC_ABSTRACT + ACC_FINAL + (flags for element class - ACC_INTERFACE) While writing regression test I noticed that jato sets flags differently from hotspot for *internal* class: private static class X { }; Jato sets no flags (0), while hotspot sets ACC_PRIVATE | ACC_STATIC (0xa). However, this bug (?) is not related to my patch. -- Tomek Grabiec ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Jatovm-devel mailing list Jatovm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jatovm-devel