On Dec 10, 2010, at 9:04 PM, John Rose wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/10 19:09, John Rose wrote:
>>> I started a thread on Google Groups to get more advice on
>>> safepoint-based
>>> invalidation, which the EG is naming MutableCallSite#sync.
>>>
>>> http://g
> public static void syncTargets(MutableCallSite[] sites, MethodHandle[]
> newTargets)
+1
I think this provides the most flexibility, performance and ease. If a
developer wants to use a wrapper method to do one up 'set and sync', they have
the flexibility to do so.
Naive question: If setTarg
On 12/11/2010 05:31 PM, Jim Laskey wrote:
>> public static void syncTargets(MutableCallSite[] sites, MethodHandle[]
>> newTargets)
> +1
>
> I think this provides the most flexibility, performance and ease. If a
> developer wants to use a wrapper method to do one up 'set and sync', they
> have t
On 2010-12-11, at 4:38 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> I think it's possible to use a synchronized block enclosing the setTargets
> and the corresponding syncs
> instead of syncTargets. From my experience, changing something on a metaclass
> often require to propagate changes on subclasses. This can't b
