On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Robert Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
> What optimizing efforts are worthwhile on generated bytecode given the > optimizing capabilities of > the JIT? I'm having trouble finding an explicit or definitive list of > optimizations, but trying to > be clever about method inlining is pretty clearly wasted effort. I can't > find any documentation on > it, but I'm assuming the JIT also takes care of constant folding, strength > reduction, and dead code > removal, since they're so straightforward. Or am I wrong, and the JIT > assumes the compiler author > applied those filters already? Other people can probably give you nitty-gritty details. The main rule, I think, is "Generate dumb code: specifically, generate what a fairly unclever Java programmer would write, as compiled by a straightforward and unclever Java compiler." That's what the JIT will have been mostly tested on. The cleverer you or your compiler are, the more likely you are to hit a case the JIT can't handle well. -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
