Re: GCJ Native Proposal
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:35:56 +0100,
Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote:
[...]
>> Iterpreted languages hardly need me to back them up, but I think they
>> have a proven track record. Taking one of the leading interpreted
>> languages and choosing to make its use of native compiled binaries as
>> a de facto for our distro just doesn't sit well with me.
>
> 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.
I think it's faster when it starts up, and I think there are more than
one case where native is slower the Sun's JIT! ;-) Fixing JIT'd be very
cool! ;-)
> 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
>
> In current stage we should go for either (2) or (3) and we should proove
> that its a gain. Otherwise we just waste archive space for no gain which
> is stupid.
About the archive space, don't forget you have to multiple the space by
the number of different arches (12 or so)!..
--
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Reply to: