On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > One old fixnum solution proposed by Per Bothner many years ago > (he is on this mailing list so he might know the PDF he wrote I am referring > to?) > Whenever I read something,my mind often over paraphrases things > (even makes up it's own version!) but I walked away with this > > The primitive types that the JVM feels the need to box. Int/float/byte etc > > All could be put into a "TAGGED" structure. This means > > (jobject && BYTE_TAG) >> TAG_LSR_BYTE == jbyte value > (jobject && INT_TAG) >> TAG_LSR_INT == jint value
Yes, this sounds like a typical "tagged pointer" way of representing numerics as pseudo-references. John Rose also posted about Fixnums in the JVM here: http://blogs.sun.com/jrose/entry/fixnums_in_the_vm As I understand it from talking to John and others, it would not be particularly "difficult" to get fixnums into the JVM, but there's nobody working on it at present. We have folks doing dynamic invocation, interface injection, tail calls, continuations/coroutines and more...but no fixnums yet. - Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=.
