Fwd: hg: mlvm/mlvm/hotspot: indy-bsm: initial implementation of per-instruction BSMs

Hi, Glad to see such great progress. Are there any examples/documentation/etc. that shows how the new per-instruction BSMs work? Keep up the good work, -- Howard. ___ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailm

Re: Getting back into indy, binding straight through

Here's the real trace... at org.jruby.RubyFixnum.op_plus(RubyFixnum.java:328) at sun.dyn.FilterGeneric$F3.invoke_V0(FilterGeneric.java:565) at sun.dyn.MethodHandleImpl$GuardWithTest.invoke_L5(MethodHandleImpl.java:830) at bench.bench_fib_recursive.method__0$RUBY$f

Auto Reply: Getting back into indy, binding straight through

Hello, I'm out of the office between July 19 and August 13. Christian Törnqvist ([email protected]) will be substituting for me. Please make sure to include him in mail conversations and telephone conferences. Regards, Henrik Österdahl JRockit Codegen & Runtime Dev Lead __

Getting back into indy, binding straight through

I'm slowly getting back into indy stuff :) I'm still running off a build from March, though, since ASM doesn't support the latest changes. Anyway, I mentioned at JVMLS that I thought I could get indy to patch through to the actual target method in my existing indy stuff. I said I could do it by to

Auto Reply: Re: Invokedynamic slower than reflection?

Hello, I'm out of the office between July 19 and August 13. Christian Törnqvist ([email protected]) will be substituting for me. Please make sure to include him in mail conversations and telephone conferences. Regards, Henrik Österdahl JRockit Codegen & Runtime Dev Lead __

Re: Invokedynamic slower than reflection?

Le 16/07/2010 00:48, John Rose a écrit : > It was some sort of bitrot. > > I pushed a fix for this to mlvm/hotspot. > > Thanks for the reports! > > -- John > Is it enable by default, it doesn't seem to work ? Rémi ___ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev