I'm running with the IBM J9 embedded VM. Sian came up with some patches (in
HARMONY-5682) that made things even faster.
Andrew Jr.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Cornwall (JIRA) wrote:
>
> > I didn't do that because I assumed the overhead of the exception
> > handler would be too much. But it's worth a try - so I just did. Here
> > are the results for my testcase:
> >
> > CpClass 0.685 3.066 Without exception handler: 0.685 s With exception
> > handler: 3.066 s
> >
> > CpRef Without exception handler: 1.204 s With exception handler:
> > 1.873 s
> >
> > CPUTF8 Without exception handler: 2.323 s With exception handler:
> > 6.761 s
> >
> > In other words, with exception handlers our time for hashCode almost
> > doubles. Since hashCode accounts for slightly more than 10% of the
> > total time of the test case with the exception handlers and less than
> > 4% without, I'm inclined to leave the exceptions uncaught.
> >
>
> Interesting. Are you running those tests with the IBM VM or the DRLVM?
>
> I'm assuming that the difference in performance is due to the JITs
> reluctance to in-line the longer version of hashCode() since the exception
> handler itself should make no difference.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
