Hello Egor, > Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU > implementation helps?
Please, check the following tests [1] developed by Nikolay Chugunov. They just report failure when CU is absent. Thanks. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/branches/2.0/tests/stress/qa/src/test/stress/org/apache/harmony/test/stress/classloader/unloading/ On 18 Oct 2007 17:53:32 +0400, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
