Am 08.12.2011 22:38, schrieb Jonathan Gibbons:
On 12/08/2011 12:47 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
I think the experiment was pretty successful the other night and Mike
and I have also figured out some ways to
streamline the process even further for future events (pre-built VMs
with the init
Wow, most impressive!
-- Jon
On 12/08/2011 08:12 PM, Xiomara Jayasena wrote:
Hi,
Last week we held [1] the first (of hopefully several!) JDK8 Warnings Cleanup Days (WCD), where the OpenJDK community collaborated to reduce the number of warnings in the JDK8 source.
We started with just over
Hi,
Last week we held [1] the first (of hopefully several!) JDK8 Warnings Cleanup
Days (WCD), where the OpenJDK community collaborated to reduce the number of
warnings in the JDK8 source.
We started with just over 10,000 warnings before WCD. The checked-in changesets
fixed a total of *1,498 *
On 12/08/2011 12:47 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
I think the experiment was pretty successful the other night and Mike
and I have also figured out some ways to
streamline the process even further for future events (pre-built VMs
with the initial build already executed once
work pretty well
On 12/08/2011 12:41 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi Alan/All,
On 3 December 2011 15:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 03/12/2011 11:27, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
So the recent warnings clean up exercise got me thinking about the
approach we took and how we could make it safer by applying/running
Hi all,
I think the experiment was pretty successful the other night and Mike
and I have also figured out some ways to
streamline the process even further for future events (pre-built VMs
with the initial build already executed once
work pretty well if you're running adequate hardware).
We're kee
Hi Alan/All,
On 3 December 2011 15:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 11:27, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> So the recent warnings clean up exercise got me thinking about the
>> approach we took and how we could make it safer by applying/running
>> tests in some of these areas. I
First, there is no AVX2 hardware yet. Second, generating JIT code for vector
arithmetic is on our TODO list but we can't say when it will be done.
Regards,
Vladimir
John Platts wrote:
I actually do agree with what Shankar said regarding the current Java memory
model. However, the point that I
cc'ing hotspot-dev.
Paul
On 12/8/11 1:41 PM, John Platts wrote:
I actually do agree with what Shankar said regarding the current Java memory
model. However, the point that I was trying to illustrate is that the JIT
compiler of a JVM can use the AVX2, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4.1 instructions instea
Shouldn't it be discussed on the hotspot-dev alias?
Thanks,
Artem
On 12/8/2011 9:25 PM, John Platts wrote:
Here is an example of a class with an operation that can be optimized on a
processor with AVX2 support:class ExampleClass {public void
ExampleOperation(ExampleClass y) {a
I actually do agree with what Shankar said regarding the current Java memory
model. However, the point that I was trying to illustrate is that the JIT
compiler of a JVM can use the AVX2, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4.1 instructions instead
of the ordinary arithmetic instructions to optimize the performa
Such an assumption (in-order execution of statements) would be invalid even
with the current memory model. There's nothing to stop the compilers from
re-ordering the adds and multiplies so that they fill each other's pipeline
delays.
So I don't think AVX2 brings anything new to the table in ter
Here is an example of a class with an operation that can be optimized on a
processor with AVX2 support:class ExampleClass { public void
ExampleOperation(ExampleClass y) { a += y.a; b *= y.b; c
+= y.c; d += y.d; e += y.e; f *= y.f; g *= y.g;
On 07/12/2011 16:12, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
:
Hi Mandy,
I ran the jdk_land and jdk_management tests from jdk/test folder
with and without my changes. I get 8 failures. Is this normal?
All the tests should pass. Does 8 failures mean the same test failing on
8 hardware/OS combinations or 8 dist
14 matches
Mail list logo
