How did Kaffe deal with SoftReferences? Did they ever go away when you
did not have a memory limit?
Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:39:03PM +0800, Xiao-Feng Li wrote:
On 8/1/06, Gregory Shimansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a method Runtime.freeMemory() which
, August 01, 2006 3:16 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [rant] Memory options in VM -- why is the
default not 'unlimited'
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 18:07, will pugh wrote:
How did Kaffe deal with SoftReferences? Did they ever go
away when you
did not have
Application, would you basically need a write
barrier for every string you allocate, since the String Class is loaded
in a parent class loader? If so, this may cause more overhead than you
would want for the stated benefit.
--Will
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 30/07/06, will pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Isn't Full GCs a big problem? If have a bunch of pages in virtual
memory, and need to do a full heap walk. Won't you basically have an
exercise in page faults?
If you never do a full GC, aren't you going to potentially leak memory
forever, and potentially get super fragmentation in the
I'm not too familiar with the Harmony code yet, but since I've had a
bunch of experience on large projects I thought I'd toss my $.02 in here.
1) When dealing with a project as large and with as much surface area
as a VM, your unit tests for the entire project will probably take
several
Will Sun's implementation ever find ReusableKey if the value has been
changed?
It would not surprise me if this simple case Sun doesn't find the entry,
because they do something like hashing the hash that ReusableKey
returns, or only allocating a prime number of buckets, e.g. you ask for
a
You might also want to mention the Memory Model changes that came as
part of JSR 133.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/memory.html
--Will
Nathan Beyer wrote:
Here's a good link with a summary of some of the new features:
El mi??, 21-09-2005 a las 08:29 -0700, will pugh escribi??:
I think having a FastJIT and forgoing the interpreter is a pretty
elegant solution, however, there are a few things that may come out
of this:
1) Implementing JVMTI will probabaly be more difficult than doing
a straight
I think having a FastJIT and forgoing the interpreter is a pretty
elegant solution, however, there are a few things that may come out of this:
1) Implementing JVMTI will probabaly be more difficult than doing a
straight interpreter
2) The FastJIT needs to be Fast! Otherwise, you run the
