Hi Kiyo, --- Kiyo Inaba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As someone may know, I am now trying to make > super-h's jit3 work. > While doing this, I go back to check how it was > organized in m68k. > Of course, the jit3 port of m68k does not work for > kjc (this is the > reason why m68k port still uses 'jit' rather than > 'jit3'), but it > can execute so many regression tests.
could you take a look at this patch by Richard Zidlicky at http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2001-December/007541.html . I don't think it has been merged in. does it improve things on m68k ? > After gathering several info from regression test > results for both jit > and jit3, I was surprised that 'jit' is faster than > 'jit3' in m68k! that's weird. I thought jit3 was the "next generation" jit, so it was supposed to be better. At least that should be the case on i386. ;) On the other hand, I've recently changed System.arraycopy to pure java, so that might expose deficiencies in a jit implementation that weren't so visible before. You could profile a benchmark run, and see if your code spends a lot of time in arraycopy, and check the generated assembly in that case. > Are there anyone who can remind me the reason why > JIT3 is introduced? I've searched the mailing list archives but couldn't find anything about design differences between the two, except for the same question being asked by someone else ;) cheers, dalibor topic __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
