Review request for JDK-8025435

Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at
Tue Sep 23 15:29:44 UTC 2014

On 09/23/2014 05:58 PM, Thomas Wuerthinger wrote:
> I understood your remark. I just believe that this restriction is not
> fundamental to JMH and there *could* be support for languages that do
> not statically compile to Java bytecodes as well.

I think this thread side-tracks.

Bottom-line: There are only two ways to hook up dynamically-compiled
language runtime into JMH (say, JS engine), depending who is in control:

 a) Ask JS engine to start executing the JS benchmark, *and* call back
into JMH with an AST/bytecode/whatever in hands, asking to measure it.
We would need to generate the synthetic Java code, compile it, load it,
and only then run it, calling back to JS runtime for execution of our
payload -- all in flight, and requiring the tight cohesion.

 b) Ask JMH to compile and execute a Java benchmark, and call into JS
engine with a JS script in hands, asking to compile and run it. There,
users statically compile the benchmark JAR, and it runs with minimal
dynamic dances, also going through the standard APIs (javax.script).

While there is nothing fundamental preventing us from exploring the
route (a), it is not as practical as going the well-established route
(b). In other words, "could be done" != "should be done".


More information about the nashorn-dev mailing list