Duby dynamic dispatch has landed!

[John Rose]

The sources are changing rapidly at this point; I'm working on invokeGeneric.  If you send me a JAR which which can run stand-alone, I can use it as a regression test.

-- John

On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> On 2010.03.25., at 3:17, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 
>> For Attila: I had to remove a spreadArguments handle you used for
>> re-binding the method...not sure why. Here's the diff:
> 
> Turns out, now the MethodHandle.invokeVarargs() actually does the whole convert-to-generic-and-invoke-as-vararg, so I committed the definitive solution for it now, which is simply:
> 
> Index: DynamicLinkerImpl.java
> ===================================================================
> --- DynamicLinkerImpl.java	(revision 233)
> +++ DynamicLinkerImpl.java	(revision 228)
> @@ -111,6 +111,12 @@
>         // Invoke the method. Note we bypass the guard, as the assumption is 
>         // that the current arguments will pass the guard (and there actually
>         // might be no guard at all).
> -        return guardedInvocation.getInvocation().invokeVarargs(arguments);
> +        final MethodHandle invocation = guardedInvocation.getInvocation();
> +        final MethodType genericType = invocation.type().generic();
> +        final MethodHandle genericizedInvocation = 
> +            MethodHandles.convertArguments(invocation, genericType);
> +        final MethodHandle spreadInvocation = MethodHandles.spreadArguments(
> +                genericizedInvocation, SPREAD_GENERIC_INVOCATION);
> +        return MethodHandles.invoke(spreadInvocation, arguments);
>     }
> }
> 
> (Mind you, this is a reverse diff, but I'm too sleepy now to fix it; just swap + and -)
> 
> I think the problem was in the fact that the (now deprecated) MethodHandles.invoke() used to behave as "invokeExact" in the last August's builds (so that's why I had to genericize + spread explicitly), while now it maps to MethodHandle.invokeVarargs(), so in addition to it being deprecated, its behaviour was also changed in the past half a year and that broke things, as you have yourself experienced :-).
> 
> Should be good now.
> 
> BTW, Stephen Bannasch's MLVM build works completely okay - I abandoned the attempt to now build my own as it didn't work out quickly and I didn't want to waste a lot of time; his version + Java sources from Mercurial seem sufficient for debugging.
> 
> I'm still not back to the old 6 unit test errors, but this patch reduced them from 18 to 8; seems there are still two genuine new issues.
> 
> Attila.
> 
>> 
>> Index: src/org/dynalang/dynalink/support/DynamicLinkerImpl.java
>> ===================================================================
>> --- src/org/dynalang/dynalink/support/DynamicLinkerImpl.java	(revision 232)
>> +++ src/org/dynalang/dynalink/support/DynamicLinkerImpl.java	(working copy)
>> @@ -115,8 +115,6 @@
>>        final MethodType genericType = invocation.type().generic();
>>        final MethodHandle genericizedInvocation =
>>            MethodHandles.convertArguments(invocation, genericType);
>> -        final MethodHandle spreadInvocation = MethodHandles.spreadArguments(
>> -                genericizedInvocation, SPREAD_GENERIC_INVOCATION);
>> -        return MethodHandles.invoke(spreadInvocation, arguments);
>> +        return MethodHandles.invoke(genericizedInvocation, arguments);
>>    }
>> }
>> 
>> I committed a built version with this hack...no tests, etc yet for
>> Duby's "dynamic" type, but that will come soon.
>> 
>> BTW, what's the current state of the art for emitting .java with an
>> invokedynamic in it? Duby also has a .java backend, so I'll need to
>> add indy support there as well (somehow).
>> 
>> - Charlie
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev