On 12/04/2015 15:54, "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >Hi guys, >I was about to write a blog post explaining why i don't like the way >VarHandle are currently implemented when it occurs to me that providing >another implementation may be a more efficient to discuss about >implementation. > >So my implementation is here, > https://github.com/forax/varhandle2 > >the API is typesafe, the implementation is runtime safe and i get mostly >the same assembly code using unsafe or this VarHandle API. > >The idea is that there is no need to add more polymorphic signature >methods, a good old Java method is enough if it using a method handle >under the hood. >All the logic is described using method handles and the only logic >written in Java is >1) when to create such method handle (the first time a method is called), > it works like invokedynamic but the method handles are stable >instead of being constant. >2) how to link all things together to do nullcheck, atomic operation and >post operation (like fence or sum).
Although I agree regarding the type safety of this being better than the polymorphic signatures of the current VarHandle API, this doesn¹t feel like it has the right shape. How would your API expand to handle user defined value types? I think if we want something type safe then specialisation over type variables would be a much better path forward for this, assuming the two can be lined up in when they might be delivered into the main JDK. Regards, Duncan. _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
