RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types

[Vladimir Ivanov]

Thanks, Chris.

I have to do one more iteration:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.05/

I have to revert changes related to BMH::reinvokerTarget.

Removal of reinvokerTarget in generated concrete BMH classes introduces 
serious performance regression, since BMH::reinvokerTarget is much more 
complex than an accessor and it disturbs inlining decisions in too many 
places.

Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov

On 4/5/14 3:31 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:44 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com
> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Christian Thalinger
>> <christian.thalinger at oracle.com
>> <mailto:christian.thalinger at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course they are popular because these are the type names.  There
>>> is no type L; it’s an object.  I don’t understand why we have to use
>>> different names just because they are used in other namespaces.  This
>>> is not a C define.
>>
>> They stand for JVM signatures as well as basic types.  The letters are
>> signature letters.  Can we move on from this?
>
> Sure.  Push it.
>
>>
>> — John
>> _______________________________________________
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net <mailto:mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>