Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM wrote:
For testing threading, I think the simpler the better.
If Harmony contains a JIT, then it would probably be easy to
configure the JIT to insert "context switch" instruction(s)
between every two instructions it emits. Then we could write
tests that attempt to
Rodrigo,
For testing threading, I think the simpler the better.
Probably some of the canonical examples from basic
Java books would be a good place to start. Right now,
I don't have too much of the native OS and library calls
implemented in JNI, but that might be something
someone could help wit
Testing the java memory model, and hence threading, is really tricky
and all I can think right now is some testing stuff Doug Lea released
regarding to java.util.concurrent. What I know is that a test to be
worth something, it must be done in a SMP machine. HyperThreading
helps a little, but in a U
for those in cambridge, ma or surroundings.
--
Stefano.
--- Begin Message ---
End-to-End Performance Optimization of Java Server Workloads
Speaker: Jong-Deok Choi
Speaker Affiliation: IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
Host: Martin Rinard
Host Affiliation: CSAIL
Date: 10-26-2005
Time: 2:00 PM -
Robert,
By all means! What do you propose? I need _everything_
you have just mentioned. Which areas are you interested in?
One of the things that I have mentioned in the initial
action item list (in file 'README') is that someone who
knows the ins and outs of threading needs to go in and
writ
These are really good news Dan!
I think we could start writing test code for the runtime functionality
like proper null checks, array bounds, class initialization,
synchronization and such.
On 10/17/05, Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Everyone,
>
> I've been working h
Everyone,
I've been working hard on changes the bootjvm 0.0.0
code that I contributed recently. There have been a
number of valuable critiques, especially involving
portability issues. I have taken a hard look at these
and found a number of things that need adjustment,
plus some plain ol' bugs.
Hi Enrico,
I have access to the intel compiler (v9 I believe). It's installed on
a different machine though. I'll try to run the test code on it and
post the results tomorrow. However, I wouldn't expect anything other
than the 0 second results we have been getting with MSVC.
Regards,
Tanuj
On 10/1
Hi Enrico,
For what it's worth, here is the data you wanted :)
OS: Windows XP Prof. with SP2
Processor: Intel P4 3 GHz with HT
RAM: 512 MB, ~155 MB free
Tested against the code supplied in your earlier mail.
Compilers Tested: 1. MingW with GCC 3.4.2
2.
Hi Enrico,
For what it's worth, here is the data you wanted :)
OS: Windows XP Prof. with SP2
Processor: Intel P4 3 GHz with HT
RAM: 512 MB, ~155 MB free
Tested against the code supplied in your earlier mail.
Compilers Tested: 1. MingW with GCC 3.4.2
Hi,
I can confirm Jerome's results. I tried out the test with 3
different optimization options (Optimize for size, for speed, and
'maximum optimizations') for the MSVC 7.1 (2003) compiler. In all the
cases, the running time was 0 seconds. When I compiled and ran the
code with no optimizations, I
Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Enrico Migliore wrote:
the code is a simple function that gets called 3 times.
This is a flawed test. Your code doesn't actually do anything, so the
function can be optimized away entirely and this is in fact was MSVC 7.1
does ("the test lasted for 0.000
Enrico Migliore wrote:
> the code is a simple function that gets called 3 times.
This is a flawed test. Your code doesn't actually do anything, so the
function can be optimized away entirely and this is in fact was MSVC 7.1
does ("the test lasted for 0. seconds")
Regards,
Jeroen
Tanuj Mathur wrote:
Hi Enrico,
Could you provide a link to the code you used to perform these
tests? i'd like to replicate the results for MSVC6, and then compare
it with MSVC 7.1 and 8 (VS 2003 and VS 2005 Beta respectively). MSVC6
is a very old compiler (1997/98), and since the C++ compiler f
Hi Enrico,
Could you provide a link to the code you used to perform these
tests? i'd like to replicate the results for MSVC6, and then compare
it with MSVC 7.1 and 8 (VS 2003 and VS 2005 Beta respectively). MSVC6
is a very old compiler (1997/98), and since the C++ compiler for MSVC
2003 (7.1) is
Hi,
I did some tests in order to see which, among MSVC,GCC and DevCpp
compilers yield the code with the best speed performance.
The test is a function that contains pure ANSI C code (no __fastcall or
similar)
and doesn't call any system call of the underlying OS.
16 matches
Mail list logo
