Stefano,
thank you for pointing peroformance issues out!
Although that was a debug build, it uncovers that Harmony is not
properly tuned for FP-intensive workloads as SciMark. One of the
possible reasons of this (known:) limitation is also raised in the
thread [drlvm][jit][ia-32]register-based
Alexey Varlamov wrote:
Stefano,
It is a bit unfair to compare *debug* build of Harmony with other
release versions :)
I'm simulating what a journalist with a developer could do.
If there is a way to make it compile in 'release mode' (if such a thing
exists), I'll be very glad to redo the
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Alexey Varlamov wrote:
Stefano,
It is a bit unfair to compare *debug* build of Harmony with other
release versions :)
I'm simulating what a journalist with a developer could do.
Our snapshots are built in release mode.
If there is a way to make it compile in
Egor Pasko wrote:
Stefano,
thank you for pointing peroformance issues out!
you're welcome, but I have to warn you, I've barely started... you might
get sick of my performance regression charts in the future ;-)
Although that was a debug build, it uncovers that Harmony is not
properly tuned
There are lies, damn lies and benchmarks which don't really tell you
if an implementation of a program is *faster* but at least it tells you
where you're at.
So, as Geir managed to get the DSO linking problem go away in DRLVM, I
was able to start running some benchmarks.
The machine is the
Stefano,
It is a bit unfair to compare *debug* build of Harmony with other
release versions :)
I suppose all VMs where run in default mode (i.e. no special cmd-line switches)?
2006/11/17, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are lies, damn lies and benchmarks which don't really tell
+1
I'm even impressed how good is Harmony performance shown in debug mode! :)
Also, by default DRLVM is tuned for client workloads - fast startup and
reasonable performance.
If you run heavy benchmarks it worth to use -Xem:server or
-Xem:server_static mode to determine the potential of DRLVM.
