On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com> wrote: > I guess my concern is that the original (long) version may or may not > inline, but obviously doesn't degrade as badly. Why does the degraded > performance of the long form suffer so much? Ruby is a very terse > language, often resulting in methods that represent a lot of code. I'm > using invokedynamic to reduce the amount of code with the assumption > that indy + mh will not count against my inlning budgets. In this > case, it appears they do?
I will also play devil's advocate here: a method with 100 constant accesses is probably rare, and I would expect to see other syntax water down any such method. So I'm not saying I expect a method with this many constant accesses to optimize perfectly...I just don't want to see it degrade compared to non-invokedynamic. - Charlie _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
