On the 0x373 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: > Rana Dasgupta wrote: > > Even in drlvm we have a lot of dll's, and I am not sure that this is a > > bad thing. It allows the components to be more modular and actually > > can reduce memory footprint, we just have to be more judicious about > > what we load at startup. We could also drop things like gc_cc.dll etc. > > if we really need to. > > Certainly helps when there is sharing rather than copying of code/data. > And if the DLLs are optional functionality then it allows users to > customize the runtime that much easier. For example, the IBM VME can > tolerate the removal of the JIT DLL such that (obviously) you only get > the interpreter functionality, same for some diagnostics, etc. For > people who want to reduce the disk/in memory footprint they can tailor > it to suit. > > > Not sure why distribution size is a big problem, it is the memory > > image size that seems more important. > > Ideally we want both of course<g> but I agree that we should plan to > distribute the full set of functionality (the big disk option) and allow > people to remove unwanted function as they see fit.
Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU implementation helps? And did anyone experiment with CU effect on DaCapo performance? not suspicious, just interested.. -- Egor Pasko
