50%? That would be astonishing, but I must admit I'm skeptical :-) Thomas, have you tried it on a bigger app? Something like Showcase or the Expense Report app?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Lex Spoon <sp...@google.com> wrote: > It's a fun idea! Methods that are only there for their type signatures > could have their bodies removed. > > Ideally, ControlFlowAnalyzer would be able to identify such methods, and > Pruner would remove their bodies. With that arrangement, the CFA and the > method abstracting would mutually benefit each other. It would also lead to > better code splitting. > > ControlFlowAnalyzer already has a notion of "instantiable types". I believe > it needs to be improved, though, to be effective at abstracting methods. To > test that theory, set a break point in Pruner.execImpl right before it calls > setInstantiableTypes. At that point, the question is whether the > abstractable methods are marked as being called or not. I believe they will > be marked as callable. > > To improve that, a new set could be added to hold the classes that are > targets of "new". Then, when ControlFlowAnalyzer visits a virtual method > call, it would have the information it needs to skip over the abstractable > methods. > > I am still mulling over the general idea, but that's my initial reaction. > If push comes to shove, we could certainly add another whole-tree walk like > in this patch, and it would be an improvement. It would make a bigger > improvement, though, if we can factor it into an existing optimization. > > Lex > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
