Re: Binary Compatibility: debug info for compiled Java programs

Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-06-10T16:37:22Z

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:25:01PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> However, this is only part of the picture. The other part is that the
> Java runtime environment can differ from the compile-time environment.
> In particular, a given class can be loaded into a running virtual
> machine any number of times, via different ClassLoaders. And since
> all references used by a class are symbolic, and since a ClassLoader
> mediates the name->class lookup, it follows that each separately
> loaded instance of such a class can have different superclasses.
>
> I.e., we load class Derived, which inherits from class Base, twice.
> We load it once via ClassLoader A and once via ClassLoader B. Then we
> can end up with different versions of Base, that might have different
> properties. E.g., B's Base might have extra private fields. (Exactly
> what changes are valid is what is described in that chapter of the
> JLS.)
>
>
> In our BC ABI, we add a new level of indirection. So, a field lookup
> isn't just *(object+offset), but instead *(object+otable[index]),
> where the otable ("offset table") is computed at class initialization
> time.

I still don't see how this mechanism implements the above principle,
i.e. converting symbolic field names to offsets; is the otable
associated with the object doing the access or with the objet defining
the class? Anyway, I could probably work this out if I sat down for an
hour with your paper :)

> Generating Dwarf that redirects through the otable, like the code
> itself does, is tempting. But is it possible? I don't see how
> something like 'print object' would work -- you would have to look
> more closely at all the reflection data to discover all the fields in
> a given class.

Generating Dwarf that redirects through a particular otable is easy.
Generating information to describe the sort of symbolic changes to
inheritance and fields, on the other hand, is not.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz