On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Mark Roos wrote:
> So I ran some tests using a simple benchmark using the jdk8-b23 from the
> Openjdk google code.
>
> Without tiered compile I get: ( times in nanoseconds )
> 52101000
> 53973000
> 20932000
>
> with tiered on
> 493788000
> 521448000
> 51328
Hi all,
maybe someone can explain to me why method handles behave this way in my
case.
Bascially I have a handle for Class#getDeclaredConstructor(Class...) I
created via unreflect.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getDeclaredConstructor%28java.lang.Class...%29
thi
The problem can be easily reproduced using this:
> MethodType type = MethodType.methodType(Constructor.class,
> Class[].class);
> MethodHandle mh = MethodHandles.lookup().findVirtual(Class.class,
> "getDeclaredConstructor", type);
> MethodType target = MethodType.methodTyp
As soon as you mh = mh.asType(target); it is no longer vararg, so it is
treating new Class[0] as the second argument cast to Object. If you are trying
to type as (Object , Object[]). I think you are going to run into difficulties
validating (Class[]) Object[]. You may have to add a wrapper to
As soon as you mh = mh.asType(target); it is no longer vararg, so it is
treating new Class[0] as the second argument cast to Object. If you are trying
to type as (Object , Object[]). I think you are going to run into difficulties
validating (Class[]) Object[]. You may have to add a wrapper to
Am 07.02.2012 17:29, schrieb Jim Laskey:
MethodType type = MethodType.methodType(Constructor.class,
Class[].class);
MethodHandle mh = MethodHandles.lookup().findVirtual(Class.class,
"getDeclaredConstructor", type);
MethodType target = MethodType.me
Try
MethodType type = MethodType.methodType(Constructor.class,
Class[].class);
MethodHandle mh = MethodHandles.lookup().findVirtual(Class.class,
"getDeclaredConstructor", type);
MethodType target = MethodType.methodType(void.class, Object.class,
Object[].class);
mh =
That will produce a
java.lang.invoke.WrongMethodTypeException:
(Ljava/lang/Object;[Ljava/lang/Object;)V cannot be called without a
receiver argument as ([Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Object;
imho casting to Object and Object[] in
mh.invokeExact((Object)Class.class, (Object[])new Class[0]);
Worked okay for me. So must be addressed in a later release. :-/
On 2012-02-07, at 1:17 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
> That will produce a
>
> java.lang.invoke.WrongMethodTypeException:
> (Ljava/lang/Object;[Ljava/lang/Object;)V cannot be called without a receiver
> argument as ([Ljava/l
Am 07.02.2012 18:29, schrieb Jim Laskey:
> Worked okay for me. So must be addressed in a later release. :-/
later than jdk7u2? oh boy. I would feel better if I could find a bug
report that shows the problem and that is resolved. Then I would at
least have something for the release notes. But I
Christian asked:
What exactly do you mean by "invalidate call sites before the
benchmark"?
Are you using MutableCallSites and call setTarget on them?
Exactly. I am using setTarget to set each call site to its initial
fallback method. This should drop the
GWT lookup chain forc
So I thought I could get away with 64bit ints and not implement the
Smalltalk automatic conversion
to BigIntegers. Bad plan.
So I went ahead and did it while I waited for the super bowl to start. Not
too difficult. Just wrappered
java BigInteger and added some simple overflow detection.
But I
On 02/07/2012 08:28 PM, Mark Roos wrote:
> Christian asked:
>
> What exactly do you mean by "invalidate call sites before the
> benchmark"?
> Are you using MutableCallSites and call setTarget on them?
>
> Exactly. I am using setTarget to set each call site to its initial
> fallba
As soon as you mh = mh.asType(target); it is no longer vararg, so it is
treating new Class[0] as the second argument cast to Object. If you are trying
to type as (Object , Object[]). I think you are going to run into difficulties
validating (Class[]) Object[]. You may have to add a wrapper to
The JRuby logic mimics what I think others are doing:
private IRubyObject addFixnum(ThreadContext context, RubyFixnum other) {
long otherValue = other.value;
long result = value + otherValue;
if (additionOverflowed(value, otherValue, result)) {
return addAsB
Can't the overflow test be (value ^ result) & (otherValue ^ result) < 0? I
think that's what hacker's delight suggests and you don't need the negation
and the sign bit mask in that case.
Sent from my phone
On Feb 7, 2012 3:31 PM, "Charles Oliver Nutter" wrote:
> The JRuby logic mimics what I thi
On 02/07/2012 03:04 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> Can't the overflow test be (value ^ result) & (otherValue ^ result) < 0?
> I think that's what hacker's delight suggests and you don't need the
> negation and the sign bit mask in that case.
In gnu.math the "fixnums" are int, so I do long addition
>From Rémi
Mark, you should use a SwitchPoint
I was thinking of that. I'll move it up on the list of things to try.
My current approach gives me the option to filter the callsites and only
invalidate the ones
for a given signature. This would only matter if I have issues with
hotspot
Hi Rémi
Just a clarification on the switchpoint usage to invalidate sites.
The switch path would still do a setTarget correct? So I am still sending
lots of
setTargets just based on switch point state?
It also seems that if the switch point is in series with the target that
the callsite will
19 matches
Mail list logo
