On 21/12/2012 11:42, "Jochen Theodorou" <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote:
>Am 21.12.2012 12:28, schrieb MacGregor, Duncan (GE Energy Management): >>For example, Charles, how do you handle the creation of literals / >> constants when building specialised methods? Are the literals >>instantiated >> by two specialised versions identical or simply equal? > >I must confess, I didn't even think about this yet. That could indeed >cause problems. simply copying the bytecode of the method would maybe >not be ok then Well, if you are the one copying the method then the obvious solution would be to include some unique identifier as part of the arguments to instantiate literals, and maintain some sort of map of literals that have been previously instantiated. If you want the JVM to handle this sort of specialisation then the semantics of current call site could be maintained by introducing a new method on CallSite (createSpecialization maybe?) which would simply return the CallSite itself but could be overridden by subclasses to do something more appropriate for specialisation of methods (e.g. return a fresh version of the call site with the initial target). This would still require some changes to the JVM spec, and I don't know how the current implementation handles a call site being wired into multiple places (well, I do know it didn't copy well with it, but this may have changed over the last year or so). _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
