[Mono-devel-list] [PATCH] VTable layout

[Ben Maurer]

They seem to get their own wrapper methods that are not affected by the
patch.

The test with proxies that was working still works.

-- Ben

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 17:52, Jonathan Gilbert wrote:
> An issue was raised earlier that I don't recall seeing a response to: How
> does this affect transparent proxies for remoting?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> At 09:21 PM 22/03/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >On dg, 2004-03-21 at 17:27, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> >> On 03/20/04 Ben Maurer wrote:
> >> > A changelog:
> >> > 
> >> >       * class.c -- do not insert non-virtual methods in the vtable 
> >> >       * icall.c, mono-debug-debugger.c, object.c: if method->slot == -1,
> >> >         that means the method is non-virtual. This never would have
> >> >         happened before.
> >> > 
> >> > No regressions occur on the mini regression tests, the mono tests, nor
> >> > the corlib tests.
> >> 
> >> If lluis can confirm there are no regressions, please commit.
> >
> >The patch seems to be ok. I found no regressions.
> >
> >Lluis.
> >
> >> 
> >> > Index: icall.c
> >> > ===================================================================
> >> > RCS file: /cvs/public/mono/mono/metadata/icall.c,v
> >> > retrieving revision 1.434
> >> > diff -u -r1.434 icall.c
> >> > --- icall.c	17 Mar 2004 23:59:47 -0000	1.434
> >> > +++ icall.c	20 Mar 2004 20:42:14 -0000
> >> > @@ -2549,9 +2549,12 @@
> >> >  		}
> >> >  		
> >> >  		match = 0;
> >> > -		if (g_hash_table_lookup (method_slots, GUINT_TO_POINTER
> (method->slot)))
> >> > -			continue;
> >> > -		g_hash_table_insert (method_slots, GUINT_TO_POINTER (method->slot),
> method);
> >> > +		if (method->slot != -1) {
> >> > +			if (g_hash_table_lookup (method_slots, GUINT_TO_POINTER
> (method->slot)))
> >> > +				continue;
> >> > +			g_hash_table_insert (method_slots, GUINT_TO_POINTER
> (method->slot), method);
> >> > +		}
> >> > +		
> >> 
> >> After this patch is committed and tested, you could try to use a
> >> MonoBitset instead of the hashtable: it may give a measurable speedup.
> >> Also, looking at the code, it's not clear to me what would happen for
> >> properties which override just the get or the set method: maybe in that
> >> case we need to consider both the setter and the getter slots in the
> >> hashtable. Could you write a test case for that and try to break the
> >> current code?
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> lupus
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mono-devel-list mailing list
> >Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> >http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list