On the 0x374 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: > Alexei Fedotov wrote: > > 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/ > > Ahhh, CU = Class unloading. I thought Compilation Unit. Never mind my > last post on this thread 8*)
Yeah, I am a _big misleader_, misleading is not even my hobby :) Sorry again, looks like I saw this CU somewhere (maybe, in Rana's emails) ...i love and hate acronyms > Tim > > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > -- Egor Pasko
