RE: Implementation details of VMStackWalker

[Andrew Haley]

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.