> On Feb 23, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> I'll ask our code gen experts about what they'd expect from Dynamic, and
> whether it's easy to assume they always point in one direction or the other.
Feedback from Maurizio:
- javac prototypes that use condy will emit static arguments befor
> On Feb 17, 2018, at 4:01 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>> Most classes should naturally use backward references exclusively, since
>> entries tend to be generated bottom-up.
>> (In theory. If there are counter examples produced by any mainstream
>> bytecode generators, that would be good to know.)
ue in the future if by example a
NameAndType can reference a constant with cycle, the code of javac and ecj will
have to be changed.
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Samedi 17 Février 2018 00:32:17
> Objet: Re
I like this approach, this is fine for me.
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Samedi 17 Février 2018 00:32:17
> Objet: Re: A "RecursiveConstants" attribute
>> On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:50 P
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> OK, so the goal is clearly to *prohibit* cyclic constants by enforcing a
> depth constraint on condy-in-condy nesting. I like this goal much better,
> and I see how the solution addresses it.
>
> Still, I have to wonder whether its worth t
OK, so the goal is clearly to *prohibit* cyclic constants by enforcing a
depth constraint on condy-in-condy nesting. I like this goal much
better, and I see how the solution addresses it.
Still, I have to wonder whether its worth the complexity of capturing it
explicitly with a new (stackmap-
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the rational thing to do is, in SE 11, to implicitly
> assume max-depth is zero, and be done. (IE, pretend to implement this
> proposal, but don't actually allow classfiles to have the attribute.) Then
> we won't get a
It seems to me that the rational thing to do is, in SE 11, to implicitly
assume max-depth is zero, and be done. (IE, pretend to implement this
proposal, but don't actually allow classfiles to have the attribute.)
Then we won't get any classfiles that have cycles, and the full spectrum
of cycl
On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> The followup question is: when should we try to deliver it?
>
> - SE 11: get it in when condy is introduced, avoid allowing any cyclical
> constant pools to escape into the wild
> - Sometime soon after 11: address compatibility by easing into it
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>> To flesh the attribute idea out, here's a possible spec. Mentions
>> CONSTANT_Dynamic for now, and would be modified in the future to name other
>> constant types that allow cycles.
>>
>>
On Jan 19, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> To flesh the attribute idea out, here's a possible spec. Mentions
> CONSTANT_Dynamic for now, and would be modified in the future to name other
> constant types that allow cycles.
>
> Is this a happy solution to the problems raised in previous
Dan H,
Thank you for the suggestion. I need to study this in more detail.
Would it work for you if we finalize the latest Condy JVMS that Dan S sent out
and look into
recursion handling in more detail as part of a future cycle?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/2018-
We had the following discussion in the Dec 20 meeting:
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>
> Dan S: Cycle handling
> Array types can have cycles
> - rather than relying on ordering - perhaps tell tree depth - e.g.
> component type & dimensions - all in the CP
> John: perhaps
13 matches
Mail list logo
