compiling to byte-code vs java

Jonathan Gibbons Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM
Fri Aug 10 07:21:51 PDT 2007


I don't doubt that you might be able to do better by going straight  
to bytecodes.
The issue was always that it was thought to be quicker and safer to  
create a
compiler that went via Java trees.   The optimizations could come in  
phase 2,
once we have a working compiler.  Until then, it is more important to  
a compiler that works that to polish the bits.

-- Jon

On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:48 AM, Per Bothner wrote:

> This appears to be relevant to the issue of whether to compile
> "Java trees" or make use of javafx-specific code generation.
> The code is about generating Java vs bytecodes, but it also
> applies to whether we should re-write to Java ASTs or generate
> code directly from ExpressionBlock.
> I'll ask for more information, but the message seems to
> suggest that pushing values of the JVM stack is more efficient
> than using temporary variables (as you would have to when
> generating Java ASTs or Java source).
> -- 
> 	--Per Bothner
> per.bothner at   per at
> From: David Pollak <feeder.of.the.bears at>
> Date: August 9, 2007 8:08:04 AM PDT
> To: jvm-languages at
> Subject: Re: Language Role Call, and a Call to Action
> Reply-To: jvm-languages at
> On 8/9/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter at> wrote:
> parren wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 10:59 pm, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nut... at>
> > wrote:
> >> Please reply to this email with just a couple words describing what
> >> group you represent (language implementation, library  
> implementation,
> >> JVM implementation, employer, whatever) so we can get some sort  
> of tally
> >> of who's on the line.
> >
> > I represent the Abacus Formula Compiler - a spreadsheet to JVM
> > bytecode compiler used to let users customize computations inside  
> of,
> > for example, financial applications. Still closed source, but  
> soon to
> > be GPLed, at least. Uses a mini functional language internally that
> > gets compiled (fold et al.). But: it currently aims at being fully
> > decompilable by JODE to Java source so people can understand what it
> > generated. Might preclude using new features the JVM is going to
> > introduce.
> Interesting. You say you compile straight to bytecode though? What  
> about
> just generating Java code as an intermediate step? I believe this  
> is how
> Quercus works, and I know of a few others that do this rather than
> bytecode generation.
> When I did the byte-code generator for the Integer spreadsheet, I  
> found there were efficiencies gained by keeping intermediate  
> results on the stack which one does not get with spreadsheet ->  
> Java -> byte-code.  In some cases, I got 20%+ performance improvement.
> - Charlie
> -- 
> lift, the fast, powerful, easy web framework
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> Groups "JVM Languages" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages at
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jvm-languages- 
> unsubscribe at
> For more options, visit this group at 
> group/jvm-languages?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the compiler-dev mailing list