At 02:41 15/2/01 -0500, Jay Glanville wrote:
>Interestingly, I've found (my non-official and non-quantitative analysis
>opinion) that javac from 1.3 is comparable, if not better (sacrilege!!) then
>jikes. Jikes CERTAINLY outperforms javac from 1.1.x and 1.2.x, but I
>believe that the javac from 1.3 has been totally re-written and performs
>much better.
I am curious what makes you say this. I just rerun tests on compiling for
80, 300, 500 and 1000 files. Jikes comes out in front each time. Then I
removed 10 files from each and recompiled. Still jikes came out faster. I
ran it on FAT32 system (win98se) and ext2 (linux) system and found the same
results so it is not the filesystem. Can you tell me your environment and
if there is anything exceptional about it?
>I have actually found that the error checking from javac 1.3 to be more
>strict then jikes (jikes will SOMETIMES miss things like case statements
>where the case label is based on a variable, but javac 1.3 will catch this
>error).
turn on pedantic mode in jikes and you will find it is much much muh more
conformant than javac ;)
>Another advantage of javac 1.3 over jikes is that javac 1.3 fully supports
>the JPDA structure, which many debuggers use. I.e.: if you use jikes to
>compile, and then use JSwat to debug, JSwat might complain about not being
>able to fully find all the debugging information. Please confirm this
>before you take what I say as gospel.
yup ;( jikes is busted for those debuggers.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
