Andrew John Hughes wrote: > Based on your comments, it seems you agree with my original intuition > of making this a native VM call (by default) in the majority of > cases, but efficiency would seem to be fairly VM specific. Sure, but Thread.getState() is unlikely to be used very often and should definitely not be performance critical, so it makes sense to have it do some more work, instead of doing the work upfront. > I suppose I was aiming on lightening the load on the VM interface, as > I seem to be throwing tons down there lately. I'd be interested in > comments from other VM coders as to what they feel is best. Providing a correct (but, for example, inefficient) default implementation is a great idea for the VM interface, but IMHO we should not be providing partial implementations. A compile error or exception is way better than subtly incorrect behavior. > I'll revert to something similar this evening, but the real > test will be when I add some of this to gcj. Thanks. I've already implemented the interface in IKVM, so my feedback is based on real experience ;-) Regards, Jeroen
