On Apr 9, 2020, at 2:31 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > yes, indy is a way to create any new bytecode, but it also has some > restrictions, > the major one being that you can not using it before it has been bootstrapped.
Good point; we found that with string concatenation, didn’t we? If we use indy for this, we’ll run into similar bootstrapping issues. Which reminds me that Brian has been pondering javac intrinsics for some time, as a way of replacing method calls that would ordinarily be linked and run the normal way, with preferable alternative implementations. This game could also be played (very carefully) with BSMs. That (like javac intrinsics) would sidestep the usual bootstrapping orders. So, here’s a recommendation: Use indy, and use a clunkier fallback in the same places that today use a clunkier fallback for string concatenation. And, record a line item of technical debt that we should further explore indy intrinsics, after we figure out what javac intrinsics look like. — John
