RE: [Sablevm-developer] reflection classes for constant pool and bytecode data

[Andrew P. <apu...@ac...>]

> Etienne M. Gagnon <eg...@j-...> wrote:
> >   public class org.sablevm.vm.Constant_UTF8
> >   public class org.sablevm.vm.Constant_Unicode
>
> I am unsure about these two...  Why not keep a single
> "org.sablevm.vm.Constant_String", as the interpreter has
> presumably already a native global reference to the string?

I just wanted to make the source encoding explicit in the constant
class type.

> >       public int size() { return 2; }
>
> Why the "size"?  Don't you assume a long is 64 bits, as per
> specification?  On a 64 bit processor, this would be a single
> word.  We shouldn't make the JIT interface specific to an
> architecture.

Size means "number of 32 bit words". I guess its not really
necessary.
 
> >   public class org.sablevm.vm.Opcode  { ... };
>
> As I said earlier, it would be possible to keep the original
> code array around, to shield the JIT from SableVM specific
> internal codes,as much as possible. SableVM encodes the
> destination of branches using absolute addresses.  You
> certainly don't want to reverse engineer those addresses!

Hmm. I was thinking I might gain insight by looking at the internal
codes (although I haven't anything specific yet). However, I
suppose use of absolute addressing in the internal codes isn't
going to be the only problem down the road (and it is a problem 
now), so I'll stick to using the original Java bytecode. 

I haven't had much time this week to work on this. Hopefully next
week will be kinder...


Andy