>
> >>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
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
Raja Vallee-Rai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. The results are so interesting.
> ibmjit: speedup of the AlphaWorks IBM 1.1.8
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
3 - 4 times.
Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Benchmarks comparisons between Java and C/C++.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lee
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Nikom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
Does anybody know comparable benchmarks for Java, C and C++ tasks?
I am interested in comparative speed of the languages - any platform
is good. So far I heard only about two years old Java/C++ comparison
on NT, which stated similarity in speed under some conditions.
Thanks,
Jacob Nikom
Ra
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
Kontorotsui wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I hope this is not OT.
>
> I have a Java distributed application that works on a network of Linux PCs.
> Is there a way to tell, at the end of the computation, how much time was spent
> for each method (of course I mean on the local istance of the program)
Per Widerlund wrote:
> Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
>
> There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
> Linux, and it would be nice to be able to compare
> them.
Search javaworld - they have some good stuff on the Volanomark:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-00-199
--
| From: qtxperw / mime, , , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: java-linux / mime, , , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Benchmark
| Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:19AM
|
| Hello all!
|
| Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
|
| There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
| L
>Hello all!
>
>Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
>
>There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
>Linux, and it would be nice to be able to compare
>them.
More probably you have already knew about this VM_SPEC tool:
http://java.sun.com/features/1998/08/spec.html
I
21 matches
Mail list logo
