>
> >>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? C
>>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
>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 towa
> 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?
My guess is that all good JIT compilers do pretty advanced optimizations
which trump whatever JOpt is doing. In fact, some JIT compilers p
At 22:09 9/18/99 -0400, Michael Emmel wrote:
>Also it produces the slowest bytecode on the planet. Great for development.
[it == jikes] just because the bytecode is simple doesn't always mean it's
bad/slow... I'm starting to see JITTERs good enough to turn straight forward
bytecode such as that p
som ranting near the end but do not compile shipping code with jikes.
Also do not make IBM slow jikes down for shipping code : )
Michael Sinz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:03:18 +0200, Ian Corner wrote:
>
> >You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
> >Jik
Ian Corner wrote:
>
> You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
> Jikes as I thought that was the IBM JVM. Do you happen to know what Java
> version Jikes is comparable to?
Jikes is the name of two separate IBM projects: a compiler (a very
active project) and a
At 00:03 10/19/99 +0200, Ian Corner wrote:
>You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
nope
>Jikes as I thought that was the IBM JVM. Do you happen to know what Java
Jikes is a Java compiler, that is it takes in source code in the Java
Language and emits Bytecod
>
> You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
> Jikes as I thought that was the IBM JVM. Do you happen to know what Java
> version Jikes is comparable to?
>
No, IBM's JVM is IBM's port of Sun's JVM. It's a JVM.
jikes is a java source to java bytecode compiler
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:03:18 +0200, Ian Corner wrote:
>You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
>Jikes as I thought that was the IBM JVM. Do you happen to know what Java
>version Jikes is comparable to?
Jikes is the IBM Research Java Compiler. It is *very* fas
You mentioned in a previous email the ibmjdk, is that Jikes? If not what is
Jikes as I thought that was the IBM JVM. Do you happen to know what Java
version Jikes is comparable to?
Where is the best place to get Java RPMs under one roof, rather than going
all over the Net to find them?
Regards
I
Hi!
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 Godmar Back wrote:
>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 differe
>>Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
>Why? Were you involved in developing the IBM JDK? ;-)
No, it's just that my friends who do Java on Windows can't laugh at me
anymore.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . . .. . . . http://
>
> >I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
> >measures up against other JVMs.
>
> Wow, nice numbers. I'm excited to see that ibmjdk on Linux is now in
> the same ballpark (or faster!) as msjvm and the Sun VM on Windows.
> Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
>I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
>measures up against other JVMs.
Wow, nice numbers. I'm excited to see that ibmjdk on Linux is now in
the same ballpark (or faster!) as msjvm and the Sun VM on Windows.
Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
How do other pe
>
> Personally, I'd be interested to see info about non-Blackdown free
> JVMs. We don't hear too much about them on this list. That would
> have been an interesting comparison.
>
I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
measures up against other JVMs.
Here's the estim
does anyone know why I can't access any alphaworks.ibm.com webpage with
netscape 4.6 from my linux box?? netscape always stalls after after a
few bytes...
thanks!
renzo
Raja Vallee-Rai wrote:
>
> I goofed with the last message and messed up the formatting.
> Here's a better version:
>
> -Ra
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 08:51:29PM -0500, Chris Abbey wrote:
>
> >A # indicates that the run failed validity checks.
>
> poor bor...er...inprise
You can use Borland :). Anyway, the result is not bad since the JIT
has been released as a public Beta test and we'd like to know more
details abo
Interesting comments.
> >benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
> >and minimum results, and averaged the remaining 8 execution times.
>
> very good methodology... sure wish more people would do that.
Yes - it sounds like a nice mix between "median" and "mean". Me
On 1999-10-12 13:52:58 -0400, Raja Vallee-Rai wrote:
> The following tests were conducted on an unloaded dual processor
> Pentium II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each
> benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
> and minimum results, and averaged the
benchmarks are statistics.
statistics are numbers.
numbers can be made to lie.
I make no judgement of the validity of Raja's numbers - I only
wish to supply the grain of salt that I feel must accompany any
benchmarks for them to be meaningfull. (and to prevent the Ziff-
Davis reporters on the lis
I goofed with the last message and messed up the formatting.
Here's a better version:
-Raja
-
Hello,
We have formally evaluated the different virtual machines available
for Linux and thought it would be worthwhile to share the results with
the Linux community.
Th
22 matches
Mail list logo
