[armedbear-devel] JVM Compilation

[dmiles@users.sourceforge.net]

I mentioned this on IRC but Ville said that ABCL methods where much smaller
and would not be an issue.


So based of this info I made I never inline bytecode in larkc/uabcl ..
 (I make it poke at well heated static code instead preferred.. this also
makes the system more portable crossed recompilations). when a static call
site is not prefered a non static but well visited call site works well ex:
foo.length()  if  CXRImpl.LENGTH(LispObject obj) is too annoying in
bytecode.  so foo.length() is the reasonable compromise


On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:

> On 6/8/10 1:41 PM, Mark Evenson wrote:
> >
> http://nerds-central.blogspot.com/2009/09/tuning-jvm-for-unusual-uses-have-some.html
>
> The point of posting this: if this article is correct, no methods over
> 8k are compiled by the JIT.  This should be verified.
>
>
> --
> "A screaming comes across the sky.  It has happened before, but there
> is nothing to compare to it now."
>
> _______________________________________________
> armedbear-devel mailing list
> armedbear-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/armedbear-devel/attachments/20100617/fb8002f0/attachment.html>