| Adding operation to ATL VM [message #62514] |
Wed, 26 September 2007 08:23  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: eric.maes.thalesgroup.com
Are there some limitations adding operations to the ATL VM ?
What are the consequences of addind a huge amount of operations ?
I'd like to add about thousand simple operations to the ATL VM. Does
anyone has tried such an experience and can tell me about his feeling on
ATL's possibilities and behavior ?
Thanks,
Regards
|
|
|
|
| Re: [ATL] Adding operation to ATL VM [message #62618 is a reply to message #62594] |
Wed, 26 September 2007 09:47  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mikael.barbero.gmail.com
From my point of view, i understood that Eric wanted to add native
operations (i.e. direct call to java method).
I don't see any point against this idea. You'll probably better have to
create your own model handler with your own methods rather than changing
one of the already existing ones (but you can inherit from it).
As those method are statically registered, it should not have a big
impact on the VM performance (maybe on the class loading time).
Regards,
Mikael
Dennis Wagelaar wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps this kind of information is better posted on the
> development mailing list: m2m-dev@eclipse.org
>
> I'll add it in CC...
>
> Eric MAES schreef:
>> Are there some limitations adding operations to the ATL VM ?
>> What are the consequences of addind a huge amount of operations ?
>>
>> I'd like to add about thousand simple operations to the ATL VM. Does
>> anyone has tried such an experience and can tell me about his feeling
>> on ATL's possibilities and behavior ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Regards
>
> I assume you mean adding VM instructions? I found that the biggest
> performance factor in the standard ATL VM is the creation of stackframes
> with every method invocation. Interpreting instructions only plays a
> small part.
>
> Of course, there are currently only 22 instructions, which are
> interpreted through a big if-then statement inside a while loop in the
> ASMOperation class. I'm afraid that this solution does not scale up to
> 1000 instructions.
>
> You may try to refactor the current approach to a more object-oriented
> approach with an interpreter pattern. You can extend the ASMInstruction
> and ASMInstructionWithOperand classes with new subclasses for each
> instruction (in their own "instr" package, probably).
>
> The behaviour for each instruction can be implemented in the instruction
> class itself and ASMOperation only needs to call instr.exec(frame).
> Instruction parsing is then done only once when the asm file is loaded.
> ASMInstruction objects are created by the ASMEmitter class. Probably a
> good idea to add an ASMInstructionFactory class that creates the correct
> object for each mnemonic.
>
> This may be a lot of work, but you probably need to do this if you don't
> want the runtime transformation performance to become worse.
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
--
Mikaël Barbero - PhD Candidate
ATLAS Group (INRIA & LINA) - University of Nantes
2, rue de la Houssinière
44322 Nantes Cedex 3 - France
tel. +33 2 51 12 58 08 /\ cell.+33 6 07 63 19 00
email: Mikael.Barbero@{gmail.com, univ-nantes.fr}
http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/lina/atl/
|
|
|
| Re: [ATL] Adding operation to ATL VM [message #62642 is a reply to message #62618] |
Wed, 26 September 2007 10:23 |
 Dennis Wagelaar
Messages: 147
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Ah, ok. Then it depends on whether you can add to your meta-model.
Native operations on EClasses are already supported: operations are
declared in Ecore models and implemented in the generated code.
Performance impact: EMF operations are invoked through Java reflection.
If you cannot extend your meta-model's EClasses, using your own model
handler is indeed the best solution. The ASMModelElement subclass for
each model handler (e.g. ASMEMFModelElement for EMF model handler) will
handle all method invocations. You can add code to your own
ASMModelElement subclass to handle special operations, without affecting
the ATL VM code.
Regards,
Dennis
Mikaël Barbero schreef:
> From my point of view, i understood that Eric wanted to add native
> operations (i.e. direct call to java method).
>
> I don't see any point against this idea. You'll probably better have to
> create your own model handler with your own methods rather than changing
> one of the already existing ones (but you can inherit from it).
> As those method are statically registered, it should not have a big
> impact on the VM performance (maybe on the class loading time).
>
> Regards,
> Mikael
>
> Dennis Wagelaar wrote:
>> Hmm, perhaps this kind of information is better posted on the
>> development mailing list: m2m-dev@eclipse.org
>>
>> I'll add it in CC...
>>
>> Eric MAES schreef:
>>> Are there some limitations adding operations to the ATL VM ?
>>> What are the consequences of addind a huge amount of operations ?
>>>
>>> I'd like to add about thousand simple operations to the ATL VM. Does
>>> anyone has tried such an experience and can tell me about his feeling
>>> on ATL's possibilities and behavior ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regards
>>
>> I assume you mean adding VM instructions? I found that the biggest
>> performance factor in the standard ATL VM is the creation of
>> stackframes with every method invocation. Interpreting instructions
>> only plays a small part.
>>
>> Of course, there are currently only 22 instructions, which are
>> interpreted through a big if-then statement inside a while loop in the
>> ASMOperation class. I'm afraid that this solution does not scale up to
>> 1000 instructions.
>>
>> You may try to refactor the current approach to a more object-oriented
>> approach with an interpreter pattern. You can extend the
>> ASMInstruction and ASMInstructionWithOperand classes with new
>> subclasses for each instruction (in their own "instr" package, probably).
>>
>> The behaviour for each instruction can be implemented in the
>> instruction class itself and ASMOperation only needs to call
>> instr.exec(frame). Instruction parsing is then done only once when the
>> asm file is loaded. ASMInstruction objects are created by the
>> ASMEmitter class. Probably a good idea to add an ASMInstructionFactory
>> class that creates the correct object for each mnemonic.
>>
>> This may be a lot of work, but you probably need to do this if you
>> don't want the runtime transformation performance to become worse.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dennis
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [ATL] Adding operation to ATL VM [message #62666 is a reply to message #62642] |
Wed, 26 September 2007 11:07 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: eric.maes.thalesgroup.com
> Mikaël Barbero schreef:
>> From my point of view, i understood that Eric wanted to add native
>> operations (i.e. direct call to java method).
Yes, I am speaking about adding native operations.
Thanks for your answers.
Regards
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01900 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
