2007
DOI: 10.5381/jot.2007.6.5.a2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling a JVM for polymorphic bytecode.

Abstract: In standard compilation of Java-like languages, the bytecode generated for a given source depends on both the source itself and the compilation environment. This latter dependency poses some unnecessary restrictions on which execution environments can be used to run the code. When using polymorphic bytecode, a binary depends only on its source and can be dynamically adapted to run on diverse environments. Dynamic linking is particularly suited to polymorphic bytecode, because it can be adapted to an execution … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, our binary components are linkable units, but not loadable units, that is, they cannot be replaced or serviced after application execution has started. Hence, we plan to study the possibility of considering a different semantics for the composition operators based on dynamic rather static linking, following the approach taken in [11,16] where models for virtual machines able to execute polymorphic bytecode have been defined. Another limitation of the approach is that mutual consistency of components only means that type correctness is guaranteed, but of course does not imply that components satisfy some expected behaviour.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, our binary components are linkable units, but not loadable units, that is, they cannot be replaced or serviced after application execution has started. Hence, we plan to study the possibility of considering a different semantics for the composition operators based on dynamic rather static linking, following the approach taken in [11,16] where models for virtual machines able to execute polymorphic bytecode have been defined. Another limitation of the approach is that mutual consistency of components only means that type correctness is guaranteed, but of course does not imply that components satisfy some expected behaviour.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%