I'm fine with limiting this patch and setting up the next steps. Should we create some JIRAs for those steps?
-Nathan On 4/20/07, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/21/07, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/19/07, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > JET replies on SSE2 instructions and this patch does not fix it. The > patch > > fixes only OPT. > > "client" mode contains JET as a first JIT, but I added code to JET to > check > > if SSE2 is available and refuse compilation if not. > > The second JIT in 'client' mode is OPT and after JET is refused to > compile a > > method, OPT compiles it. > > > > I have another idea to check in JET if method contains double ops and > > compile it if it does not. It will improve startup time and JVMTI > support > > significantly before JET is able to support 'doubles' on i586, because > of > > only small number of methods use doubles. > > Good idea. This above on 586/P3 can be phase I of P3 support. The rest > is somewhat lower priority imho. Since the minimum it is being tested > on is P3, why not call it P3? The first name was p5. My first patch with cpuid integration use 'p3' as the name. The only difference in the second patch is 'p3' name changed to 'i586'. So we have a choice here :) Actually I vote for the last name. However I do not think the name is really matters here. Comments in the file give detailed description for those who interested in details. -- Mikhail Fursov
