[kaffe] Inlining BEGIN/END_EXCEPTION_HANDLING macros in jni.c (Was: Re: [kaffe] Moving away from macros to inlined functions)

[Guilhem Lavaux]

Dalibor Topic wrote:

> Guilhem Lavaux wrote:
>
>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is a simple code hygene issue: I'd like to move away from using 
>>> preprocessor macros all over kaffe's C sources, to use inline 
>>> functions. Since the gdb debugger has a much better time with 
>>> inlines, the gcc compiler produces more useful error and warning 
>>> messages, inlines can be prototyped to check for type violations, 
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> I'd like to start with BEGIN/END_EXCEPTION_HANDLING in jni.c and the 
>>> sysdepCallMethod on arm, as that's what I'm trying to debug at the 
>>> moment. Is everyone O.K. with the idea to move away from macros?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> dalibor topic
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as it doesn't complicate kaffe's structure I don't see why we 
>> should keep them. By the way, introducing true function calls helps 
>> the programmers to keep a clean way to program. Usually macros are 
>> bad used... So this should be done at a time or another. I am for it.
>

After a very simple test using that program you may see that the 
returned pointers are different. To fix this with gcc is pretty easy 
(just call __builtins_frame_address(1) in the inlined function) but for 
a more general approach it is difficult.

#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct {
        int retbp;
        int retpc;
} frame;
 
static inline void  func()
{
        void *inl_addr = __builtin_frame_address(0);
        frame f = *(frame *) inl_addr;
 
        printf("f.bp=0x%08lx f.pc=0x%08lx\n", f.retbp, f.retpc);
}
 
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
        void *addr = __builtin_frame_address(0);
        frame f = *(frame *) addr;
 
        printf("f.bp=0x%08lx f.pc=0x%08lx\n", f.retbp, f.retpc);
 
        func();

	return 0;
}

It's just a quick and dirty test...

Cheers,
Guilhem.