Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
I'm writing up a blog post on this now, so any additional information is
very welcome. And I'm not necessarily blaming the JVM...but slower is
slower.
http://headius.blogspot.com/2008/04/shared-data-considered-harmful.html
- Charlie
Matthias Ernst wrote:
Charles,
what do you expect? That the VM spread out all global variables
throughout the heap so that any broken access pattern cause not too
many cache flushes? You're hammering a global from multiple threads, I
don't think you can blame the JVM for that, be it for a
On Apr 3, 2008, at 2:20 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
I'm just looking for a definitive answer on why it's better this
way in
Java 6.
This particular micro-benchmark happens to be slower in Java 6 than
in Java 5, but if the layouts were changed by four or twelve bytes
the opposite
Hi John,
Btw, thanks for posting this, along with the links and references, was
very helpful.
Thanks,
--Vladimir
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM, John Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies for the atrocious formatting of the last message.
I put the rules here for easier reference:
On 4/3/08, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM, John Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. You can then cast it to the subclass and go on from there.
That's what I had hoped, but the JLS doesn't actually seem to guarantee this.
If so, that provides a
