In addition to the actual code of the gwt test there is currently a poll-based
test for call site mutation. Eventually this will be replaced by a notification
with zero fast path overhead.
-- John (on my iPhone)
On Apr 11, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> Bottom line, though is that t
On 04/11/2011 02:13 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> I think you can fix a little bit your implementation:
>> First instead of sending the name of the operation at each call
>> you should use the indy name to encode that name
>> instead of pu
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> I think you can fix a little bit your implementation:
> First instead of sending the name of the operation at each call
> you should use the indy name to encode that name
> instead of pushing it on the stack.
> So fixnumFallback should bind the
Hi Charles !
On 04/11/2011 12:18 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Today I played a bit more with expanding our use of invokedynamic in
> JRuby. The experiment today was to replace direct guarded calls with
> indy calls.
>
> Specifically, when calling an operator (+, -,<, etc) with a literal
> in
Today I played a bit more with expanding our use of invokedynamic in
JRuby. The experiment today was to replace direct guarded calls with
indy calls.
Specifically, when calling an operator (+, -, <, etc) with a literal
integer, we use a different call site that checks instanceof
RubyFixnum and cal
