On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:17:59 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> The LambdaForm will be only used for non-customized bytecode (which cannot
> fully inline anyways)
True, without customization the cases holder in the current implementation will
not be a constant, so we can never inline the cases for shared
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:25:45 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> as we skipped generating the intrinsic
Huh, why? As I understand, intrinsics are bound on NamedFunction; the
NamedFunction to select a MH should be still there in a MH chain.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23763
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:26:19 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/InvokerBytecodeGenerator.java
>> line 628:
>>
>>> 626: continue;
>>> 627: }
>>> 628:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:10:36 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
>> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to
>> remove this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>>
>> The existin
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:33:27 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> In that case, won't the root form be customized and the table switch names
>> be inlined into the root form?
>
> The root would e.g. have a constant BMH pointing at a _shared_ tableSwitch
> LF. So, the BMH fields would be seen as constant a
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:11:28 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandles.java line 7664:
>>
>>> 7662: if (mh.type() != expectedType)
>>> 7663: throw new IllegalArgumentException(
>>> 7664: "Some targets do n
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:42:16 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
>> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to
>> remove this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>>
>> The existin
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to remove
> this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>
> The existing tab
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:12:05 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> the LambdaForm will just have a single call site for all the cases, whereas
> the intrinsic does emit a call per case?
Yes. The LambdaForm will be only used for non-customized bytecode (which cannot
fully inline anyways) or interpretation.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> The existing tableSwitch combinator's LF is unnecessarily complex. This patch
> also simplifies the tableSwitch combinator.
You're gonna have to explain this. Looking at the code, I think the
optimization here is that, the LambdaForm will j
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to remove
> this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>
> The existing tab
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:37:08 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
>> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
>> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to
>> remove this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>>
>> The exis
Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH when
we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to remove this
intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
The existing tableSwitch combinator's LF is unnecessarily complex. This patch
a
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> Remove the intrinsicData field. We can obtain this from the customized MH
> when we spin ultra-customized lambda forms. In the long run, we aim to remove
> this intrinsic if there is no regression for call site sharing.
>
> The existing tab
14 matches
Mail list logo
