Thanks, Bu Qi! I'm fine with "max_level=2" approach. We may review the "Random.initialize()" issue more thoroughly later. Would you please come up with the clean patch?
Thanks again, Aleksey. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM, bu qi cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Aleksey: > > Sorry for confusion. The data is like following. for > "nextDouble" Where: > " clean" = no inline + no sync elimination + no scalar replacement. > " max_level=2 " = inline + sync elimination by escape analysis in 3 > level(in call graph) method analysis > "InstanceInitialize inline" = inline + inline "Random.initilizer" + sync > elimiation and scalar replacement with escape analysis in 1 level(self) > method analysis. > > Improvement > clean max_level=2 > InstanceInitilize inline max_level=2 InstanceInitilize > inline > crypto.aes 39.59 37.79 > 38.22 -0.045466027 -0.034604698 > crypto.rsa 193.24 178.11 > 172.08 -0.078296419 -0.109501138 > crypto.signverify 118.6 111.5 > 109.71 -0.059865093 -0.074957841 > compiler.compiler 93.86 95.2 > 91.25 0.014276582 -0.027807373 > compiler.sunflow 139.63 133.45 > 123.64 -0.04425983 -0.114516938 > scimark.fft.large 14.8 15.01 > 14.93 0.014189189 0.008783784 > scimark.sor.large 21.69 21.67 > 21.71 -0.000922084 0.000922084 > scimark.sparse.large 12.86 12.77 > 12.88 -0.006998445 0.00155521 > scimark.monte_carlo 298.17 707.2 > 977.29 1.371801321 2.277626857 > xml.validation 81.17 79.1 > 82.15 -0.025502033 0.012073426 > scimark.fft.small 931.98 919.09 > 931.98 -0.013830769 0 > scimark.lu.small 842.59 811.66 > 831.09 -0.036708245 -0.013648394 > scimark.sparse.small 70.95 70.94 > 65.5 -0.000140944 -0.076814658 > serial 8.32 8 > 8 -0.038461538 -0.038461538 > > Thanks! > > Buqi >
