On Nov 25, 2010, at 8:42 AM, John Rose wrote: > On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:57 PM, John Rose wrote: > >> Because of a strong and reasonable request from the IBM JVM team, the JSR >> 292 class file format for CONSTANT_InvokeDynamic is changing one more time. >> ... >> I will be putting out a review request soon for this. > > > Here is a JVM change which moves the variadic parts of CONSTANT_InvokeDynamic > specifiers out of the constant pool and into a new attribute, > BootstrapMethods. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/7001379/webrev.hs.00
src/share/vm/classfile/classFileParser.hpp: + //@@ static int start_operand_group(GrowableArray<int>* &operands, int op_count, TRAPS); + //@@ static void store_operand_array(GrowableArray<int>* operands, constantPoolHandle cp, TRAPS); Do we still need them? src/share/vm/oops/constantPoolOop.hpp: - void copy_entry_to(int from_i, constantPoolHandle to_cp, int to_i, TRAPS); + static void copy_entry_to(constantPoolHandle from_cp, int from_i, constantPoolHandle to_cp, int to_i, TRAPS); Maybe I'm missing the obvious here but why do need to pass a handle in? There is nothing fancy going on in that method. > > For review, here is the specification change, in the javadoc in the jdk repo: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/7001379/webrev.jdk.00 301 * Each {...@code CONSTANT_InvokeDynamic} entry refers has a reference to a 302 * bootstrap method specifier defined in a separate array. I think there are some superfluous words. 317 * {...@code BootstrapMethods} attribute. In particular, each cosntant Typo. > > The JDK webrev also includes an adjusted unit test. > > The base revision was reviewed by Christian yesterday: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/7001423/webrev.00 > > The JVM code passes the unit test, of course. -- Christian _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
