Shameless self-promotion:
The Soot framework developed at McGill University
(www.sable.mcgill.ca/soot) does Java optimization. You can run your
programs through Soot and they should come out a bit faster. Instructions
for doing so are found at
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/soot/tutorial/optimizer
We've experienced the `java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: current
thread not owner' exception after we run some of our test programs through
Soot, our Java bytecode analysis framework. Strangely enough, the
exception does not occur on the original copies of the programs, only
after we Sootif
Until this question was asked, we had assumed that SMP runs fine on our
dual-processor PII machines.
However, come to think of it, the SPEC JVM benchmark mtrt does tend to
randomly fail. We just ignored this failure, but it might indeed be due
to JVM flakiness.
(We don't actually write multithr
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Mark Christiaens wrote:
> I'm not familiar with this benchmark. What is better? Higher or lower
> values? Can these benchmarks also be run on a 1.1 JVM? I'm especially
> interested in the IBM machine which is 1.1.8.
We have results from IBM's 1.1.8 somewhere around here,
I ran a few benchmarks to compare the different JVM's out there, on the
SPEC benchmarks plus two of our internal benchmarks, sablecc (a parser
generator), and soot, a frozen version of our analysis framework.
Here are the results. These results are not scientific; in particular, I
only ran each
> I wonder how much speedup can be achieved by using tools like
> Jopt ( http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~markusj ). Are there any
> benchmarks yet?
If you keep an eye on the Sable website, by next week there will be a
technical report describing how much speedup you can obtain with inlin
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Albrecht Kleine wrote:
> > I forgot to mention that the machines are running the x86 JIT. Our next
> > step is to find a way to run the Solaris versions of JDK1.2 and see what
> > those numbers look like.
>
> TYA jit 1.4 on a plain P200 jdk1.2
> takes 100 sec for myprog_stat
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Nick Lawson wrote:
> My first guess would be that the jit is better at static calls than virtual.
> Nick
>
> > There are strange timings for the following programs. In particular, the
> > static version runs at about half the speed of the nonstatic version,
> > which seems b
I forgot to mention that the machines are running the x86 JIT. Our next
step is to find a way to run the Solaris versions of JDK1.2 and see what
those numbers look like.
pat
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Patrick LAM wrote:
> We have some machines running Debian 2.1 here (libc 5.4.46), and we
We have some machines running Debian 2.1 here (libc 5.4.46), and we are
running the pre-v2 Linux port of Java.
There are strange timings for the following programs. In particular, the
static version runs at about half the speed of the nonstatic version,
which seems backwards; static takes 232s a
I ocassionally got the same thing too! Still don't know what causes it.
Most of the time a programs works fine, but suddenlly it returns this
message (probably after a did something, but I can't recall).
I thought that's my machine's problem, Now I think it might not be that
simple.
BTW, I have
What you've mentioned is known as method inlining.
The Soot framework does this optimization on Java classfiles. (Why
classfiles? See the technical report at
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/publications/sable-tr-1999-3.ps
"Optimizing Java Bytecode using the Soot Framework: Is it feasible?"
for a r
12 matches
Mail list logo
