[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker
From: |
Andrew Haley |
Subject: |
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:11:24 +0100 |
Jeroen Frijters writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > However, as for overhead -- I don't believe it. I doubt that not
> > having this parameter saves anything much on any VM.
>
> That's just your lack of imagination ;-) I was concerned with two
> aspects wrt performance:
> 1) Class literals are inefficient -- this is no longer an issue to me,
> since I now use ecj (in 1.5 mode) to compile GNU Classpath
> 2) I have to do multiple (partial) stack walks to retrieve multiple
> frames
>
> Remember, IKVM is built on top of another VM, so I have to use another
> stack walking abstraction to walk the stack. Having to fetch multiple
> frames is obviously more expensive than having to fetch a single frame.
As I said:
> IMO trying to unify low-level stack walker code is unnecessary and
> leads to too many compromises; it's a merge too far.
Andrew.
Message not available
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
- RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker,
Andrew Haley <=
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25
RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker, Jeroen Frijters, 2005/07/25