On Jan 5, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
> I think I prefer a more general mechanism that ask javac to replace all
> access to fields (or methods) for a given class, insert an invokedynamic
> instead and let you specifies the bootstrap method in Java code.
>
> With that, you have properti
On 1/5/2013 2:20 PM, Noctarius wrote:
> Am 05.01.2013 20:44, schrieb BGB:
>> On 1/5/2013 12:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
>>> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
> imagine to do:
> https://
Am 05.01.2013 20:44, schrieb BGB:
> On 1/5/2013 12:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
>> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
>>> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
imagine to do:
https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/1357
Am 05.01.2013 21:03, schrieb Remi Forax:
> On 01/05/2013 07:53 PM, Noctarius wrote:
>> Am 05.01.2013 19:41, schrieb Remi Forax:
>>> On 01/05/2013 07:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
>> Ok I took some time to make a deepe
On 01/05/2013 07:53 PM, Noctarius wrote:
> Am 05.01.2013 19:41, schrieb Remi Forax:
>> On 01/05/2013 07:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
>>> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
> imagine to do:
>>
On 01/05/2013 08:08 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> No.
>> invalidating a SwitchPoint that is JITed cost your an harm,
>> invalidating a SwitchPoint which is not JITed is just a volatile write
>> but you still have to update the callsite to
On 1/5/2013 12:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
>> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
>>> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
>>> imagine to do:
>>> https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/135739572.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
> As mentioned
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
> No.
> invalidating a SwitchPoint that is JITed cost your an harm,
> invalidating a SwitchPoint which is not JITed is just a volatile write
> but you still have to update the callsite to use a new SwitchPoint.
I think I missed some details. In t
Am 05.01.2013 19:41, schrieb Remi Forax:
> On 01/05/2013 07:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
>> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
>>> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
imagine to do:
https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/0
On 01/05/2013 07:37 PM, Noctarius wrote:
> Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
>> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
>>> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
>>> imagine to do:
>>> https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/135739572.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
> As mention
On 01/05/2013 07:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I can accept that invalidating a SwitchPoint that's in use would cause
> some perf impact. But I'm wondering why we'd see the same perf hit for
> invalidating a SwitchPoint that has never been bound. Is there a
> reason for this?
Am 05.01.2013 19:15, schrieb BGB:
> On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
>> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
>> imagine to do:
>> https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/135739572.html
>>
>>
>>
As mentioned before it would be great if someone is interes
Hello all!
I can accept that invalidating a SwitchPoint that's in use would cause
some perf impact. But I'm wondering why we'd see the same perf hit for
invalidating a SwitchPoint that has never been bound. Is there a
reason for this?
I have a few places in JRuby where I eventually give up on cac
On 1/5/2013 10:17 AM, Noctarius wrote:
> Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
> imagine to do:
> https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/135739572.html
>
> As mentioned before it would be great if someone is interested in
> the topic and wants to help.
well, I
Ok I took some time to make a deeper introduction in what I
imagine to do:
https://www.sourceprojects.org/default/2013/01/05/135739572.html
As mentioned before it would be great if someone is interested in
the topic and wants to help.
Cheers Chris
Am 05.01.2013 15:20, schrieb Noctarius:
> He
Hey
Yesterday I started a discussion (not yet very active) on the
java.net forums about adding Property Accessors to the Java language.
Currently I'm still not totally convinced on how to do all that
for example accessors for array index access but I'm pretty sure
there are good ideas out there in
16 matches
Mail list logo
