Thanks, Chris.
I have to do one more iteration:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.05/
I have to revert changes related to BMH::reinvokerTarget.
Removal of reinvokerTarget in generated concrete BMH classes introduces
serious performance regression, since BMH::reinvokerTarget is much more
complex than an accessor and it disturbs inlining decisions in too many
places.
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 4/5/14 3:31 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:44 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com
<mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Christian Thalinger
<christian.thalin...@oracle.com
<mailto:christian.thalin...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Of course they are popular because these are the type names. There
is no type L; it’s an object. I don’t understand why we have to use
different names just because they are used in other namespaces. This
is not a C define.
They stand for JVM signatures as well as basic types. The letters are
signature letters. Can we move on from this?
Sure. Push it.
— John
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-...@openjdk.java.net <mailto:mlvm-...@openjdk.java.net>
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-...@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
