Hi,
I've been following the MLVM list for a while now and I would like to
get involved. I'm interested in tuple signatures
(http://blogs.oracle.com/jrose/entry/tuples_in_the_vm). I'm fairly new
to the hotspot code base, so you may have to forgive my lack of
knowledge.
I've spent a couple of week
Changeset: 2cd2529d803f
Author:jrose
Date: 2011-05-15 02:10 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/jdk/rev/2cd2529d803f
meth: adjust API, small bug fixes
+ meth-args-6983728.patch
! meth-doc-7014005.patch
+ meth-exc-7044892.patch
! meth-review-7032323.patch
! series
_
I think I updated correctly, but still seem to run into the
catchException issue...attempting to confirm now.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:11 AM, wrote:
> Changeset: 2cd2529d803f
> Author: jrose
> Date: 2011-05-15 02:10 -0700
> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/jdk/rev/2cd2529
Hello,
I would expect a WrongMethodTypeException to be thrown by
convertArguments in the following snippet, on the ground that String
is neither a wrapper nor a supertype of a wrapper of int, the return
type of mh0.
MethodHandle mh0 = lookup.findVirtual(String.class, "length",
MethodType.
Very cool! I am glad someone with the requisite skills has begun looking into
John's tuples post!
I am not an expert on Hotspot internals, so I am afraid I can't respond to your
query. But we (JRuby and other dynlangs) most definitely have a need for tuples
in representing complex numeric boxes
Ok, nevermind...looks like it wasn't applied by Stephen's
script...perhaps it's not marked as ready yet?
I will be patient :)
- Charlie
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
wrote:
> I think I updated correctly, but still seem to run into the
> catchException issue...attemptin
Can I get a rough guesstimate from the JVM guys how much more overhead
is involved in accessing a never-changed MutableCallSite versus a
ConstantCallSite? I have a few places where I want to use
invokedynamic to lazily initialize some literals. They'll never change
after the initial construction, b
At 6:05 PM -0500 5/15/11, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>Ok, nevermind...looks like it wasn't applied by Stephen's
>script...perhaps it's not marked as ready yet?
>
>I will be patient :)
>
>- Charlie
>
>On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> wrote:
>> I think I updated correctly,
