On 01/23/2015 12:30 AM, John Rose wrote:
On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Vladimir Ivanov vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com
wrote:
Remi, John, thanks for review!
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8069591/webrev.01/
This time I did additional testing (COMPILE_THRESHOLD 0) and
Good idea, Peter!
Updated version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8069591/webrev.02/
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 1/23/15 5:38 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 01/23/2015 12:30 AM, John Rose wrote:
On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Vladimir Ivanov
vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com wrote:
Remi,
On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Vladimir Ivanov vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com
wrote:
Remi, John, thanks for review!
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8069591/webrev.01/
This time I did additional testing (COMPILE_THRESHOLD 0) and spotted a
problem with
in Invokers.java, I think that checkCustomized should take an Object and not a
MethodHandle
exactly like getCallSiteTarget takes an Object and not a CallSite.
The use of erased types (any ref = Object) in the MH runtime is an artifact of
bootstrapping difficulties, early in the project. I
On Jan 21, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Remi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
in Invokers.java, I think that checkCustomized should take an Object and not
a MethodHandle
exactly like getCallSiteTarget takes an Object and not a CallSite.
The use of erased types (any ref = Object) in the MH runtime is an
Hi Vladimir,
in Invokers.java, I think that checkCustomized should take an Object and
not a MethodHandle
exactly like getCallSiteTarget takes an Object and not a CallSite.
in MethodHandle.java, customizationCount is declared as a byte and there
is no check that
the CUSTOMIZE_THRESHOLD is not
