My rule of thumb is: if you know that one concrete code shape will
always fit the execution, I'd just emit the bytecode. Invokedynamic is
great for cases where the executed code needs to change from time to
time. You can also combine it - the invocation of actual property
getters getA(), getB() etc. are invokeDynamic linked, and the
branching is in bytecode; i.e. if you know that the sequence at that
point in the code will always be a.b.c.d.
Attila.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Dain Sundstrom d...@iq80.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have a general strategy question about using invoke dynamic. Say I have a
dynamic language that has null safe property chaining where a.b.c.d results
in null if a null is encountered anywhere in the chain. I could implement
this two ways, 1) generate byte code that checks for nulls or 2) use a
guarded method handle at each step that takes care of the nulls. Either
option is ok with me, but I'd rather not write both versions to and then try
to figure out which one will make the JVM angry.
As a broader question, there are lots of places where I can make this type of
decision (e.g., pass by value parameters, copy on assignment value classes),
is there a rule of thumb for going with traditional byte code over branching
method handles?
Thanks,
-dain
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
