JEPs proposed to target JDK 9 (2016/10/19)

[Vitaly Davidovich]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vitalyd at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>
> I think David must be talking about stripping the binary to just the set
> of methods known to be used - think of internal linkage, like static
> functions in C which may just get inlined and aren't present in the
> binary.  So in Java AOT, closest parallel would be a private method but of
> course that's callable at runtime, so I don't see how AOT can just omit it
> entirely.
>
>
> AOT supports deoptimization and re-JIT-ing, so it would be easy to omit
> methods from AOT output, and just use interpreter or JIT to handle the
> execution.
>
This would have to be opt-in, I'd imagine, as otherwise it would defeat the
purpose of AOT.  Or it would have to very limited where it does this.

Separately, what optimizations (if any) will be done in AOT? Clearly
there's no profiling info, which is where the big gains typically come
from, but will anything be done? For example, are loops optimized
(unrolled, unswitched, etc)? Are statically known (at AOT time) callees
inlined? Or is it basically C1 level of optimization (i.e. very minimal)?

>
> AOT could do stuff like tree shaking (static call graph minimization) or
> enforcement of strong encapsulation, but it doesn't yet.  It's early days
> for this technology.
>

> — John
>


-- 
Sent from my phone