On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, John Rose wrote:
> Yes. Your request for "JO" makes me think some users would be happy with a
> boolean test, a la addWouldOverflow.
> It's what happens after the test that differs widely among applications, so
> why not just standardize the test.
> if (addWouldO
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:04 PM, John Rose wrote:
>> (1) Write a compelling API for something like Integer.addDetectingOverflow.
>> (2) Roll it into JDK 8+epsilon.
>> (3) Do the JIT work.
>> People have thought on and off about (1) for man
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> An exception is perhaps more easier to use,
> because if it overflow you may have to deoptimize, for that you need the
> stack and local values,
> it's easier to jump to a exception handler that will push all these values
> and call the interpret
On 09/06/2011 10:19 PM, John Rose wrote:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:58 PM, John Rose wrote:
What's needed here is a way to get 33 bits out of a 32-bit add
intrinsic. There's no fully natural way to do this, and about 4
kludgey ways. Because there are so many poor ways to shape the API,
it's hard
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:58 PM, John Rose wrote:
> What's needed here is a way to get 33 bits out of a 32-bit add intrinsic.
> There's no fully natural way to do this, and about 4 kludgey ways. Because
> there are so many poor ways to shape the API, it's hard to pick the best one
> to invest in.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:04 PM, John Rose wrote:
> (1) Write a compelling API for something like Integer.addDetectingOverflow.
> (2) Roll it into JDK 8+epsilon.
> (3) Do the JIT work.
> People have thought on and off about (1) for many years, but with no clear
> winner. Exceptions or boxed object
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Did we ever figure out if it's possible to trick Hotspot into doing a
> JO instead of the raw bit-level operations? John/Christian/Tom: what
> would it take to get HS to "know" that we're doing an integer
> overflow-after-maths check and d
On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> If you have specialize for -2/+2, you should reuse exactly the same code
>> for +n/-n.
>> see
>> https://code.google.com/p/jsr292-cookbook/source/browse/trunk/binary-operation/src/jsr
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> If you have specialize for -2/+2, you should reuse exactly the same code
> for +n/-n.
> see
> https://code.google.com/p/jsr292-cookbook/source/browse/trunk/binary-operation/src/jsr292/cookbook/binop/RT.java#11
You're right. I'll make that chang
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Christian Thalinger
wrote:
> We already talked a bit about that some while ago. I think matching that
> double-xor-trick (or whatever it's called) is too risky. A JDK method that
> does the check (and the math?) would be nice so we can intrinsify it. GWT
> wo
On 09/06/2011 05:51 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> Yes, but don't forget that PHP.reboot has no overflow check.
> Did we ever figure out if it's possible to trick Hotspot into doing a
> JO instead of the raw bit-level operations? John/Chris
On 09/06/2011 07:33 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>>> Yes, but don't forget that PHP.reboot has no overflow check.
>> Did we ever figure out if it's possible to trick Hotspot into do
On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>> Yes, but don't forget that PHP.reboot has no overflow check.
>
> Did we ever figure out if it's possible to trick Hotspot into doing a
> JO instead of the raw bit-level operations? J
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> Yes, but don't forget that PHP.reboot has no overflow check.
Did we ever figure out if it's possible to trick Hotspot into doing a
JO instead of the raw bit-level operations? John/Christian/Tom: what
would it take to get HS to "know" that we're
On 09/06/2011 04:59 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Awesome numbers, especially promising for impls like JRuby that will
> never have type annotations and for which type inference will be very
> limited. Getting within 3x Java while still fully boxed is amazing.
Yes, but don't forget that PHP.r
Awesome numbers, especially promising for impls like JRuby that will
never have type annotations and for which type inference will be very
limited. Getting within 3x Java while still fully boxed is amazing.
Perhaps the next big thing for InDy will be getting EA working across
invokedynamic boundar
16 matches
Mail list logo
