Guys, guys! This is my review thread for JDK-8025435. Start another one for this, please…
/M On 23 Sep 2014, at 17:29, Aleksey Shipilev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/23/2014 05:58 PM, Thomas Wuerthinger wrote: >> I understood your remark. I just believe that this restriction is not >> fundamental to JMH and there *could* be support for languages that do >> not statically compile to Java bytecodes as well. > > I think this thread side-tracks. > > Bottom-line: There are only two ways to hook up dynamically-compiled > language runtime into JMH (say, JS engine), depending who is in control: > > a) Ask JS engine to start executing the JS benchmark, *and* call back > into JMH with an AST/bytecode/whatever in hands, asking to measure it. > We would need to generate the synthetic Java code, compile it, load it, > and only then run it, calling back to JS runtime for execution of our > payload -- all in flight, and requiring the tight cohesion. > > b) Ask JMH to compile and execute a Java benchmark, and call into JS > engine with a JS script in hands, asking to compile and run it. There, > users statically compile the benchmark JAR, and it runs with minimal > dynamic dances, also going through the standard APIs (javax.script). > > While there is nothing fundamental preventing us from exploring the > route (a), it is not as practical as going the well-established route > (b). In other words, "could be done" != "should be done". > > -Aleksey. >
