That would make sense. However apart of that there's still a lot of reflection behind the scene even when using StaticCompile. For example just replacing the println statement with a `new Hello()` in the previous snippet, I'm getting the following errors when trying to compile with the AOT compiler:
groovy.lang.MetaClassRegistry$MetaClassCreationHandle.createWithCustomLookup(Class, MetaClassRegistry): Method is marked as deleted: HotSpotMethod<Class.getConstructor(Class[])> at groovy.lang.MetaClassRegistry$MetaClassCreationHandle.createWithCustomLookup(MetaClassRegistry.java:149) at groovy.lang.MetaClassRegistry$MetaClassCreationHandle.create(MetaClassRegistry.java:144) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.ClassInfo.getMetaClassUnderLock(ClassInfo.java:259) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.ClassInfo.getMetaClass(ClassInfo.java:302) at Hello.$getStaticMetaClass(Hello.groovy) at Hello.<init>(Hello.groovy) at Hello.main(Hello.groovy:5) at com.oracle.svm.core.JavaMainWrapper.run(stripped:111) org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedClass$8.initValue(): Method is marked as deleted: HotSpotMethod<Class.getInterfaces()> at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedClass$8.initValue(CachedClass.java:216) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedClass$8.initValue(CachedClass.java:214) at org.codehaus.groovy.util.LazyReference.getLocked(LazyReference.java:49) at org.codehaus.groovy.util.LazyReference.get(LazyReference.java:40) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedClass.getMethods(CachedClass.java:274) at org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.metaclass.ClosureMetaClass.initialize(ClosureMetaClass.java:474) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.ClassInfo.getMetaClassUnderLock(ClassInfo.java:260) at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.ClassInfo.getMetaClass(ClassInfo.java:302) at Hello.$getStaticMetaClass(Hello.groovy) at Hello.<init>(Hello.groovy) at Hello.main(Hello.groovy:5) at com.oracle.svm.core.JavaMainWrapper.run(stripped:111) Here the offending methods are Class.getConstructor(Class[]) and Class.getInterfaces(). Does the MetaClassRegistry mechanism is really needed when using the Groovy static compilation ? p On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > That line was added to break a hard-dependency on the groovy-xml module by > the core groovy module. With Java 9's "real" modules, we'd potentially want > to rework that. I haven't really thought about what we might do instead but > welcome to suggestions/ideas/PRs. > > Cheers, Paul. > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Paolo Di Tommaso < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Good question. I leave the answer to Groovy core developers, however as >> far as I've understood even when the code is statically compiled, Groovy >> still uses reflection in runtime helper methods. For example one of the >> first issue I've encountered it's raised by the following line in the >> InvokeHelper.format >> <https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/GROOVY_2_4_11/src/main/org/codehaus/groovy/runtime/InvokerHelper.java#L607> >> method that the AOT compiler is unable to translate to native code >> >> Method serialize = >> Class.forName("groovy.xml.XmlUtil").getMethod("serialize", >> Element.class); >> >> >> >> p >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Winnebeck, Jason < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think a biggest question than AOT compatibility is why does compile >>> static still need to do reflection? I thought that was the point was to >>> disable it, especially for Android support…? Unless the issue is the >>> metaclass generation, does compile static still generate metaclasses? >>> >>> >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 11:02 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Groovy AOT compilation >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> I just want to share with you my experience with the Java AOT compiler >>> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oracle-labs/program-languages/overview/index.html> >>> a came across a few days ago. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Although they said clearly that it still an experimental project and it >>> does not support dynamic class loading and most of reflection, I turns out >>> it's possible to compile a basic static Groovy class, eg: >>> >>> >>> >>> @groovy.transform.CompileStatic >>> >>> class Hello { >>> >>> >>> >>> static void main( String... args ) { >>> >>> System.out.println "Hello world!" >>> >>> } >>> >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This mean that it creates a native 5MB binary executable, that can run >>> on any machine without the need of the Java VM nor the Groovy runtime! in >>> 12 millisecond! cool!! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately the good news stops here. I was unable to successfully >>> compile any other piece of code, which for example uses a Groovy "println" >>> method or just instantiate a class. The problem seems to be that, even >>> though the code is statically compiled, Groovy uses reflection behind the >>> scene to instantiate classes and performs other operations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, I guess this is certainly not a Groovy top priority, however since >>> there is an on-going discussion around a major Groovy reengineering to make >>> it compatible with the upcoming Java 9 module system, I was wondering if it >>> would not make sense to include the support for the Java AOT compiler as a >>> goal for a future Groovy 3/4 release? >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally I think it would be an extremely useful feature and a major >>> achievement for the project. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What do you think ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the >>> intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or >>> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original >>> message and any attachments. >>> >> >> >
