On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I "finished" the initial JSR292 implementation. I haven't done any
> performance work and it shows:
Oh very nice :) Only took about a month (since JVMLS) for you to have
a working 292 release?
The base numbers aren't bad
Very cool!
-- Christian
On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I "finished" the initial JSR292 implementation. I haven't done any
> performance work and it shows:
>
> ikvm -Djruby.compile.invokedynamic=false -jar jruby-complete-1.7.0.dev.jar
> bench\bench_fib_
This is an auto-replied message. I am out of the office until Aug 22nd with
limited access to email and phone.
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
Rémi, A message from our glorious ASM leader.
I seem to recall some discussion on the mentioned class names ( MethodType
and MethodHandle).
I assume this means that asm no longer has these types? And thus I no
longer need the full class names
for the java.lang versions?
thanks
mark
_
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
> One thing I we should fix is that the bytecodes of the method handle adapter
> shouldn't count against the DesiredMethodLimit, in the same way they don't
> count against the inline depth.
Yeah, I think I'm hitting that often now that I'm e
On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Christian Thalinger
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm. I remember you were saying this is some old Ultra 20. The only box I
>>> could find which is si
On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Hi Rémi,
>
>> Do you have changed the argument of fib, the result is different from
>> one post by Charles ?
>
> I didn't change anything and I get the same result with JDK 7, so something
> else must have changed.
We usually use 5 35 as a
On Aug 8, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Should we put "skip bytecode quickening" code under flag to do this only when
> invoke dynamic is enabled? Or put_code is zero only in invoke dynamic case?
No, it doesn't buy us anything. The new checking code is only execute
Hi Rémi,
> Do you have changed the argument of fib, the result is different from
> one post by Charles ?
I didn't change anything and I get the same result with JDK 7, so something
else must have changed.
Regards,
Jeroen
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlv
On 08/16/2011 03:46 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hi Jeroen,
>
> I "finished" the initial JSR292 implementation. I haven't done any
> performance work and it shows:
>
> ikvm -Djruby.compile.invokedynamic=false -jar jruby-complete-1.7.0.dev.jar
> bench\bench_fib_complex.rb
> normal f
This is an auto-replied message. I am out of the office until Aug 22nd with
limited access to email and phone.
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
Hi everyone,
I "finished" the initial JSR292 implementation. I haven't done any performance
work and it shows:
ikvm -Djruby.compile.invokedynamic=false -jar jruby-complete-1.7.0.dev.jar
bench\bench_fib_complex.rb
normal fib
832040
0.286000 0.00 0.286000 ( 0.286000)
fib with constants
12 matches
Mail list logo
