On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:06:45PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > [...] > >You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is > >aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting > >the jar. > >Doing (c) and fixing JIT runtimes can be good, but it ist a hard work > >too. The Kaffe people put much efforts into this. JIT works find on i386 > >but not at all on powerpc for them. Same mixture for all the other > >Debian archs. When Kaffe supports the BC-ABI too this will be huge gain > >after all as it is surely be faster then non-JITed bytecode. The idea is > >make the code reuseable to other VMs can adopt it too. > >We have now 3 possibilitiest: > >1) compile all to native > >2) compile a selected group of jars to native > >3) dont compile to native at all and decide later > > Are there any tests done in the past for the gain against jit or > interpretative mode ? > > Otherwise I think some testcases would be very good here: > > How much gain does it bring for architectures (like i386) - where > already a good jit implementation is available ? > > How much gain does it bring for achitectures without a jit > implementation ? > > If there is quite a gain for architectures without a jit atm and maybe its > also a long way until they have one - it would be worth to provide something > in my opinion. Especially as these arches (non i386) are the > one which are left alone by the commercial vm implementors. > > This way we could also give recommendations to the users later. E.g. > if you are on non-jit arch install the recommended -jbi (or whatever > name will be choosen) packages.
There are floating around some older comparisions. E.g. this one here: http://www.klomp.org/mark/free-vm-benchmarks/. Afaik they are all made on i386 as that is the most common arch. Michael -- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
