Any comments ?
> Hi All,
>
> I have a suggestion on a possible performance boost for the JVM which if I
> had time
> I would research more and implement, however, I'm rather time poor right now
> and
> thought I could at least put the idea in the wild for someone else or myself
> at a later
> stage.
>
> >From my last use of GCC and the code/assembler it generates I noticed that
> >the performance
> of switch()/case statements could be improved greatly as code generated by
> GCC did little
> more than a sequence of compare and jump to next label. Yes - I need to
> reverify this is
> the case, but lets assume for a moment that it still is the case.
>
> When I last optimized a bytecode dispatcher I found that using a jump table
> of addressed indexed
> by bytecode was a very efficient approach and yet still more efficient was to
> replace bytecodes with
> direct jump addresses on loading the code.
>
> While I looked briefly at the C++ for the templated interpreter of the VM it
> appears possible to
> use on or more of the approaches outlined above.
>
> Does anyone see a reason this could not be tried, or has it been tried and
> what were the results?
>
> Rgs, James.
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest news, goss and sport Make ninemsn your homepage!
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
