On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Yehuda Katz<[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it would be ok to flush all of the bytecode when send was aliased
> (which never happens). We could consider send with an unresolvable target to
> be "dangerous". The key is that dangerous methods are not all that
> expensive; they simply check a flag to check whether they need to retrieve
> backref info etc., so if they don't have to, the additional cost is just a
> simple boolean check (vs. the cost of instantiating a frame for EVERY call).
Flushing bytecode is not sufficient for OSR, but we may be able to
mitigate or ignore that fact, since most such flushes will occur long
before we have made final decisions on optimizations.
A tiered compiler that eventually settles into a "perfect view" of the
system may be reasonable, if we can urge people toward doing these
damaging calls much earlier.
- Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
