On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Mark Roos wrote: > So we do not have a path that can be assumed to be not taken (except the last > in the chain). > > Perhaps in the JVM this is a poor choice for implementation of a small > polymorphic inline cache. Here I defer to the real experts
Both monomorphic and polymorphic inline caches are a central use case for invokedynamic. For more details and references, see the VMIL paper linked here: http://blogs.oracle.com/jrose/entry/vmil_paper_on_invokedynamic See section 5, "Case Study: Inline Caches and invokedynamic". A small (non-megamorphic) polymorphic cache can be represented as a cascade or decision tree of GWT combinators, probably with a control block of some sort that can rebalance from time to time. A megamorphic call site can be represented using the class pattern of a two-step dispatch plus indirect function call. The foldArguments combinator is intended to support this pattern. (You fold some arguments together, yielding a MH to prepend to the argument list, and then you jump to an invoker.) This can support vtable or metaclass dispatches, or more subtle ones like the CLOS dispatch via a hash of relevant argument attributes. (I'm getting hungry for Remi's cookbook, because it will have this sort of example in it nicely worked out.) -- John _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
