- Mail original -
> De: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com>
> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Février 2018 17:52:44
> Objet: Re: Performance of non-static method handles
> At some point in t
invokedynamic with an
> invokeExact on a constant method handle :)
>
> see you tomorrow,
> Rémi
>
> - Mail original -
>> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
>> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net>
&
s/instanceof/instead of :)
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Février 2018 14:03:35
> Objet: Re: Performance of non-static method ha
gt; Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Février 2018 13:33:49
> Objet: Re: Performance of non-static method handles
> Vladimir Ivanov did some work a few years ago on MH customization for hot MH
> instances. It’s in the system. That should get better results than what you
> show. I wonder why
MH customization doesn't help here. The benchmark measures the cost of
MH type check + MH.invokeBasic() call.
For MH.invokeExact(), type check is ptr comparison of MH.type against
MethodType associated with the call site.
MH.invokeBasic() involves the following steps:
MethodHandle
Vladimir Ivanov did some work a few years ago on MH customization for hot MH
instances. It’s in the system. That should get better results than what you
show. I wonder why it isn’t kicking in. You are using invokeExact right?
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
