. Then there is also the interpreted
lambda form, which is quite complicated and very likely to trigger a safepoint
somewhere.
Regards,
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: Remi Forax [mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:27
To: Jeroen Frijters; Da Vinci Machine Project
Subject
Hi Rémi,
I believe this is not actually safe. There is no guarantee that when
SwitchPoint.invalidateAll() returns that all calls to GET_BYTE or PUT_BYTE that
were in flight have completed.
Regards,
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: mlvm-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net [mailto:mlvm-dev-
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
You need CAS because one form of the interrupt check clears it and
another does not. So the get + check + set of interrupt status needs to
be atomic, or another thread could jump in and change it during that
process.
I believe Thread.interrupted() and
Alexander Turner wrote:
Would not atomic increment and atomic decrement solve the multi-
interrupt issue you suggest here?
In the current API design the number of interrupts is explicitly not counted,
so there is nothing to solve. Changing the behavior is not really an option and
adding an
I will be there representing the JVMs with a suboptimal implementation ;-)
-Original Message-
From: mlvm-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net [mailto:mlvm-dev-
boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Jim Laskey
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 23:02
To: Da Vinci Machine Project
Subject: Re: JVM
Thanks for the update. This sounds great. It looks like this would be helpful
for me as well. Is the LambdaForm stuff written in Java?
Hopefully my strategy of doing nothing will pay off ;-)
Regards,
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: mlvm-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net [mailto:mlvm-dev-
Hi all,
I was surprised by this as well (from an implementers point of view), because
the use of asType is an implementation detail. Normally when you call a method
taking a boolean/byte/short/char you also load an int onto the stack, so why
would this case be any different?
Not that it makes
John Rose wrote:
When you call a function of type, say, (B), you are promising that the
32-bit int you loaded onto the stack fits into the declared subrange,
say, -128..127.
(This is a little-known invariant of the verifier. Although all
primitive arguments and return values are passed in
Mark Roos wrote:
The error I see is that at random times when I am executing Smalltalk on
jvm I get occasional a ClassDefNotFound during an InvokeExact. Usually
when I am doing a demo. After lots of trying I have a test which fails
every time for me. When it fails the stack depth varies
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Jeroen Frijters jer...@sumatra.nl
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I finished the initial JSR292 implementation. I haven't done any
performance work and it shows:
Oh very nice :) Only took about a month (since JVMLS) for you to have
+1 invoke makes sense.
-Original Message-
From: mlvm-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net [mailto:mlvm-dev-
boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of John Rose
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:08 PM
To: Da Vinci Machine Project
Subject: change invokeGeneric to invoke in MethodHandle?
One
Apologies for top-posting, I'm using webmail at the moment.
My two cents as a non-typical VM (IKVM.NET) implementer are that I don't expect
any difficulty implementing this and also that it makes a lot of sense for this
to work.
Regards,
Jeroen
From:
12 matches
Mail list logo
