On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> You bet your bippy I would. I've been wishing for something like "LLVM > for JVM bytecode" for a long time. I've been meaning to look at Janino > to replace our current compiler backend, but have been spending more > time on integration aspects of JRuby lately. Janino has been dead for about a year, but there is now a new official maintainer (Codehaus just flipped the necessary bits a week ago), so we can expect to see some movement. Note that Janino is deliberately Java 1.4, so if you want generics you have to erase them yourself. I don't consider that a serious problem for generated code. I proposed a long time ago to add "goto" to Janino, which would remove a huge amount of the incentive to generate bytecode directly. The proposal was turned down, but the new moderator might be more receptive, especially if a patch was provided. (You can do a lot of what goto does with "do ... while (false)" and judicious use of break, but it's messy.) I'm not sure that making Janino do its own optimizations is really a win: too-clever bytecode generators, as we know, can cause JITs to pessimize the code. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures -- 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=en.
