I think avoiding to create many of them is actually not trivial. The
indy port of Groovy has a similar problem. And I do have to use a lot of
insertArguments, exception catching handles and other things. So the
stress is actually pretty high at times.
example... foo(x,y) is mapped to MyInvokerFallback.handle(receiver,
"foo", x, y); with the method taking a String and an Object[]. How do I
get the name in there without insertArguments? Don't I have to create at
least one handle per name I find?
bye Jochen
On 04.05.2017 08:16, John Rose wrote:
On May 3, 2017, at 9:37 PM, Wenlei Xie <wenlei....@gmail.com
<mailto:wenlei....@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you Vladimir for the help ! I see the point why MH.bindTo() is
not a good fit for implementing lambda capturing.
A simple rule for using MHs is that they are designed to be another form
of code.
Creating many of them at a high rate is likely to stress JVM in ways similar
to loading many small classes at a high rate.
So bindTo is really code customization, which is not the same thing as
data capture.
The MH before bindTo is an algorithm with a variable "hole" in it, where
the MH after
bindTo is a customized version of the algorithm, with the hole filed by
a constant.
It's a little like a C++ template instance.
I'd like high-count bindTo to be cheaper, of course, but it's not the
design center,
and it's not where we are investing optimization effort. Maybe in the
future.
— John
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
