On May 18, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Mark Roos wrote:
>
> Does this allow the use of a byteArray as one or more of the bootstrap
> constants?
>
> I seem to recall that was something I wished for when I did a similar effort
> with
> constant call sites.
Yes, it does. The byte array would be its ow
Hi John,
Does this allow the use of a byteArray
as one or more of the bootstrap constants?
I seem to recall that was something
I wished for when I did a similar effort with
constant call sites.
mark
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
On May 18, 2017, at 2:13 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
> uses invokeinterface then the spec was rebooted, the second version has it's
> own bytecode 186,
There was another in between that used invokeinterface and reified a CallSite
with
patchable state. I did a really nasty design for this w/
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "Rémi Forax"
> Cc: "paul sandoz" , "Da Vinci Machine Project"
>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 18 Mai 2017 21:55:30
> Objet: the End of History in the constant pool
> (I'm moving an amber-dev conversation about condy to mlvm-dev.)
> We are working on a condy JEP and spec. as well as a
Hi John,
Thanks for moving the conversation to mlvm-dev! The condy stuff is finally
coming, yay!
Just out of curiousity, since we're on this topic, may I ask about what
constant tags 13 and 14 used to mean?
All I could find was that 13 was used in JavaCard VM (JCVM) as
CONSTANT_Package. But what
On May 18, 2017, at 12:55 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> I'll post some info about that in a moment.
Here's what we are thinking about doing with condy in the short term.
Comments are welcome. This work is landing in branches of the Amber
project.
— John
Just as the linkage of an invokedynamic cal
