On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:00:43 GMT, Rémi Forax <fo...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > The reason for this integer (which is not a constant in the case of this > > switch) is to restart the matching in case guards fail to "match". > > Considering the example here: > > ``` > > class Example { > > void example(Object o) { > > switch (o) { > > case String s && s.length() == 0 -> > > System.out.println("1st case"); > > case String s && s.length() == 1 -> // line 6 > > System.out.println("2nd case"); // line 7 > > case String s -> // line 8 > > System.out.println("3rd case"); // line 9 > > default -> // line 10 > > System.out.println("default case"); // line 11 > > } > > } > > } > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If `o` is `String`, then the first call to indy will be `indy[...](o, 0)`, > > returning `0`. Then the guard will be evaluated `s.length() == 0`. If the > > length is not zero, the local variable 3 will be reassigned to `1`(bytecode > > index 58, 59) and the whole switch is restarted - just this time, the > > matching in the indy will start at index `1`, not `0`, i.e. `indy[...](o, > > 1)`. And so on. I believe there is a text explaining the meaning of the > > parameter in the javadoc of the bootstrap, and in TransPatterns in javac. > > The problem with this design is that calling example("foo") forces the VM > will do 6 checkcast String on "foo", and it doesn't work with sub-patterns. > Desugaring the guards as static method like with lambdas seems more > promising, indy can be called with the pairs [String, MethodHandle(s -> > s.length() == 0)], [String, MethodHandle(s -> s.length() == 0)] and [_,_] > (with the guards passed as a constant method handles again like lambdas are > desugared). > It means that the indy needs to capture all local variables that are used in > the guards, instead of passing an int. > > I believe that a translation using constant method handles for guards is far > more efficient than using an int and a backward branch but it has a higher > cost in term of runtime data structures. I'd like to note this is a preview feature - we can change the desugaring. At the same time, I don't think this does not work with sub-patterns (those can be easily desugared to guards, I think). Regarding efficiency, it may be a balance between classfile overhead (which will be higher if we need to desugar every guard to a separate method), and the possibility to tweak the matching at runtime. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3863