Summary:
The `Typ.FIeldname` module has many issues. Among those:
- It has 5 different string/printing functions and most of them do radically different things in Java and in Clang.
- There is no type safety: creating a Clang field and calling a Java function on it will lead to a crash (`rindex_exn` etc, there are usually no dots in Clang fields).
- It uses a single string for Java fields, containing the package, the class and the field, e.g., `java.lang.Object.field`. This is wasteful, because
- there is no sharing of strings for packages/classes, and,
- string operations need to be performed every time we need the field or the class or the package alone.
This diff preserves the behaviour of the module's interface, so the API problems remain.
However, by using a saner representation for Java fields we can get small performance and large memory gains (the type environment in Java is much smaller, about 30-40%).
In addition, many functions on clang fields would previously do string manipulations (look for `.` and split on it) before returning the final field unchanged -- now they use the type of the field for that.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D18908864
fbshipit-source-id: a72d847cc
Nikos Gorogiannis
ce39017611
