On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 06:35 +0000, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] > Yes it can, if developers bother to do PGO + AOT instead and > learn the compiler flags. > > I used to have a stronger opinion on JIT, but given how many JITs > perform and do not actually use the hardware as they, in theory > could, JIT tend to only be an advantage for dynamic languages not > strong typed ones. > > With JIT, writing the code in a way that makes the JIT compiler > happy is a lost battle, as it depends on the exact same JIT > implementation being available on the deployment system.
I think you have to make good on this claim since the JVM JIT is intended for Java which is supposedly a static, strongly typed language. Moreover, evidence from Groovy is the JVM JIT provides only patchy benefit. The biggest benefit all round is invokedynamic for both static and dynamic languages. Java 8 would be nothing without invokedynamic. But maybe we should take this off this list as it is way off topic. Clearly we can use JMH for benchmarking. I have a couple of codes I could use to try things out. So: 1. How to compile and execute to get full AOT *and* switch off the JIT. 2. How to compile and execute to get no AOT and have JIT on full. then we can begin to compare. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
