hg: mlvm/mlvm/langtools: meth: support transitional and native
forms of invokedynamic in javac and javap  John Rose John.Rose
at Sun.COM Thu Oct 9 10:26:48 PDT 2008  On Oct 9, 2008, at 12:51
AM, Rémi Forax wrote:  > hum, it seems invokedynamic as now
three encodings ? > - invokedynamic (bytecode 186) which works
like invokestatic > - invokeinterface (like in JSR292 current
spec) > - invokestatic(on java/lang/Dynamic) i suppose. > As the
backport implementer, I don't understand why we need two > way
invokeinterface/invokestatic to emulate invokedynamic ?  That's
not part of the spec. yet.  The javac stuff is highly    But I'm
working on a post-EDR spec.  The 'invokestatic' form is in
response to various comments about defects in the EDR design.
You and I and others were talking at the Summit about different
possible representations for invokedynamic, and the trade-offs
between a verifier-breaking representation "native" bytecode and
a   more compatible overloading of invokeinterface (in the EDR)
or    R