That's "the inlining problem" that Cliff Click was talking about [1], right?
I wonder how well the new interpreter design in Graal would handle this kind of case, since it's supposed to have picked the good parts from trace-based compilation, but without actually having to do tracing. Can't wait to see more details of it at this year's JVM Language Summit. - Kris [1]: http://www.azulsystems.com/blog/cliff/2011-04-04-fixing-the-inlining-problem On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering... if I have code like this: > > list.each { x -> foo(x) } > list.each { x -> bar(x) } > list.each { x -> something(x) } > > then isn't it the a case where within the each method we easily get > something megamorphic, since there are too many different kinds of > lambdas involved? Isn't that a general problem with internal iterators > and is there any plan to enhance hotspot to counter that problem? > > bye Jochen > > -- > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ > german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc > For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org > > _______________________________________________ > mlvm-dev mailing list > mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
