- Original Message -
> From: "John Rose"
> To: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "Remi Forax" , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 10:52:38 PM
> Subject: Re: The last miles
> On 13 Jul 2023, at 7:24, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
>> This is a good thought; we split the initialization
On Jul 13, 2023, at 1:52 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> The proposed “unification” would require us to somehow simulate larval
> objects in terms of today’s blank identity objects
P.P.S. That’s almost possible if you declare that the new opcode makes a larval
value, but closing it off is very hard.
P.S. If the original designers of Java bytecode had allowed to allocate
its own object, and return it, we’d be having a different discussion. I wish
it had been like that. I think it is a false economy to have “new X(…)” and
“super(…)” call the same method symbol; that is the root of many evi
On 13 Jul 2023, at 7:24, Brian Goetz wrote:
> This is a good thought; we split the initialization protocol and its a fair
> question to ask whether we can go back to a lump.
>
> In this case, I suspect John is about to say “Please let’s not give the
> verifier any more jobs to do.”
It is that,
This is a good thought; we split the initialization protocol and its a fair
question to ask whether we can go back to a lump.
In this case, I suspect John is about to say “Please let’s not give the
verifier any more jobs to do.”
> On Jul 13, 2023, at 3:39 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> Hi all
Hi all,
if we take a step back and think about how value types are currently
implemented,
a good retconing is that value classes are classical classes that behave
slightly differently at runtime when they are JIT optimized
and if an optimization has to be done before JIT time (class layout by exa
