Eric Blake wrote:
> But maybe it
> is worth it after all for StrictMath to have native implementations,
Note I am not saying that StrictMath should have native implementations,
only that it *may*, *if* the results are the same.
> Is the overhead of calling a native method offset by the
> speed of doing this number crunching without going through bytecode?
It depends. For GCJ, there is no overhead for calling a native method,
beyond the normal method calling overhead, which is the same as in C++.
(For virtual calls. Interface calls are a different matter.) For JDK,
or other system with a good JIT, it is probably faster to use Java code.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/per/
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
