[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues
From: |
Andrew Haley |
Subject: |
Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:53:59 +0100 |
Archie Cobbs writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Prove me wrong with a specific ISO C specification clause, if you
> > > claim otherwise.
> >
> > I spent a long time working on and supporting gcc, and this is the
> > rule I've had to refer people to more times than any other. It's
> > amazing how many programmers don't know the specfication.
>
> You guys are going off into the weeds. All that's required from C
> for the byte[] strategy to work is that this works:
>
> void *ptr;
> char *buf;
>
> ptr = <any valid pointer value>
> buf = malloc(sizeof(ptr));
> memcpy(buf, &ptr, sizeof(ptr));
>
> ... then sometime later ...
>
> memcpy(&ptr, buf, sizeof(ptr));
> <continue using the fully restored ptr>
>
> I'm not a specophile but I would guess that C does at least guarantee this.
It does. I'm not trying to get into a debate about micro-
optimization: given the overhead of JNI, it's probably not important.
What I care about is that the code should be legal, maintainable, and
efficient -- in that order.
Having spent a lot of time working on SWT, the ability to subclass a
native pointer is IMO very important indeed. It would have saved me a
huge amount of time if native pointers had types. This is more
important than quibbles about efficiency.
However, if someone posts code that I don't believe is legal, I will
point it out. I mean, I can't help it. :-)
Andrew.
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, (continued)
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Michael Koch, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Michael Koch, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Archie Cobbs, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues,
Andrew Haley <=
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- RE: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, David Holmes, 2004/04/05
- RE: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/06
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/05
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/06
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Steven Augart, 2004/04/06
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Andrew Haley, 2004/04/06
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, Etienne Gagnon, 2004/04/06
- Re: Classpath build process and VM-specific issues, David Lichteblau, 2004/04/06