Chanwit Kaewkasi schrieb:

So you mean a custom JIT, no the JIT of the JVM.

you can get that knowledge by a flow analysis I think.

this means you have either to change the code the method uses, or you have to generate code and plug that in here. But ignoring this.. The question could for example if we need a JIT here at all? we could also generate static code and add a check. Something like (pseudocode):

Object a,b; if (Integer#plus(Integer) is default) { int b' = 10 int a' = b'+2 b = new Integer(b') a = new Integer(a') } else { Class class1 = org.codehaus.groovy.trace.Demo.class; b = new Integer(10); a = ScriptBytecodeAdapter.invokeMethodN(class1, b, "plus", new Object[] { new Integer(2) }); }

If I wanted to JIT then I would probably try to inline the bytecode of the called method and eliminate unneeded boxing action and transformations. For example I could find, that the call is ultimatively only:

return new Integer(left.intValue() + right.intValue());

which means I could reduce the code to:

Class class1 = org.codehaus.groovy.trace.Demo.class; Object b = new Integer(10); Object a = new Integer(b.intValue()+new Integer(2).intValue())

and then:

int b' = 10; Object b = new Integer(b'); Object a = new Integer(b'+2);

which of course would be much faster, than what we currently have.But I am not sure there is a way for a JIT we write to get all these informations... like what method will be called in the end.. for 2.0I plan to let the MetaClass return the method it will call instead of calling the method directly. In that a case JIT would have an much more easy job here.

bye blackdrag

-- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org) http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ http://www.g2one.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email