>>To add another reason why nobody should draw conclusions quite yet:
>>Kaffe's benchmarks were obtained with a version of its class libraries
>>that was compiled with jikes, which is often considered to create
>>the slowest bytecode among the different javac compilers.
>
>Is it? Can you point me towards some info about this issue with Jikes.
>I'd like to read more about it.
there really hasn't been much written. This exchange on the jikes list
sums it up best.
From: "Pun, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I am really impressed by the speed of the jikes compiler. I am wondering is
>there any significant difference in code optimization between jikes and
>javac?? Are there any pointers to articles on how the optimization
>compares??
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>We get the occasional report that Jikes generates better bytecode that javac,
>but no one has ever submitted any hard evidence of this. Bytecode
generation is
>straightforward, though we do take care to put something in the constant pool
>only if necessary.
>
>As for speed, Jikes is written in C++, javac in Java. We also like to
think we
>have done a good job using efficient algorithms in the compiler.
What we really need IMHO is a good comparison written up. I have access
to a very good benchmark suite at work that I hope to use to this end
sometime this winter, but first I've got to get my machine into a usable
state; and that isn't going well. -=Chris
cabbey at home dot net <*> http://members.home.net/cabbey
I want a binary interface to the brain!
Today's opto-mechanical digital interfaces are just too slow!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
