search for: oopsla01

Hi James, Joshua is right, what you're trying to accomplish is quite known in the Java VM world ( http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/dgrove.oopsla01.html ). In order to express the "thunk" code in LLVM you need a full control of how registers are used (because otherwise they would mess up with the arguments). I haven't investigated enough to know if that's possible today in LLVM (I think it wasn't a few years ago when I a...

...m changes that are as broadly useful as possible. I've added some notes below about what approach might be taken and I'd be interested to know what you think. Kind regards, Stephen Cross [1] http://loci-lang.org/StructuralTyping.html [2] https://www.research.ibm.com/people/d/dgrove/papers/oopsla01.pdf [3] http://marc.info/?l=llvm-dev&m=129594650017675 ---- Notes about potential approaches ---- In terms of the approach, there are at least two parts to this problem: * Setting/retrieving the hidden value * Forwarding function arguments For the former, two vague ideas I had were adding a...

Thanks, that's a good idea - I'll have a look through the VMKit source. -- James On 31 January 2011 21:39, Joshua Warner <joshuawarner32 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I see the problem now. You might look at VMKit (a Java VM build with the > LLVM JIT compiler) - I would expect it uses a similar method for resolving > interface calls (the method, if I

Hi James, I see the problem now. You might look at VMKit (a Java VM build with the LLVM JIT compiler) - I would expect it uses a similar method for resolving interface calls (the method, if I understand it correctly, is well-known in the Java world). I've CC'd the main dev behind VMKit - he might be able to lend some insight. --Joshua On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:24 PM, James Williams