Am 18.08.2014 12:01, schrieb Raffaello Giulietti: [...]
For example, we have a large Smalltalk application with about 50'000 classes and about 600'000 methods. In Smalltalk, almost everything in code is a method invocation, including operators like +, <=, etc. I estimate some 5-10 millions method invocation sites. How many of them are active during a typical execution, I couldn't tell. But if the Smalltalk runtime were implemented on the JVM, PICs would quite certainly represent a formidable share of the memory footprint.
What are the option we are talking about here? Staying with a native Smalltalk VM vs going on the JVM? Because in my opinion a native Smalltalk VM will always be able to shine with a much lower memory footprint than whatever Java can offer today.
Or are we talking about a Smalltalk version on the JVM with a PIC vs a simple inline cache? If done right, then imho the PIC can beat the simple inline cache in most cases, if not too big (how big may depend on the application, but 5 seems to be a good number)
And since Groovy was mentioned... Groovy does not have a PIC, only a simple inline cache. And that is mostly because I am still trying to work out a memory sensitive PIC (I think I can write it just didn't yet get the time doing it and compare numbers). But what I can tell is that all those lambda forms in uncompiled callsites are quite a memory toll to pay.
bye Jochen -- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
