harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] what's next?
Date Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:02:56 GMT
On 6/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Build and dependency issues aside, what are the next functional
> >enhancements / features for DRLVM?
>
> >I think #1 is to get it to function with Java 5 classfiles, so we can
> >make the switch throughout the project.
>
> Geir,

   Good question. By next, I guess we mean in the relatively
near future...Some thoughts that come to mind in addition to 1.5 are:
  1. We should start running classlibraries and existing api tests against
the DRLVM bits. This is sure to identify bugs/issues that will need
addressing.
  2. We need to achieve completeness in the DRLVM VM functionality.....we
don't handle stack overflows well, efficient unmanagd heap management
issues, there is functional completenes needed in the verifier, optimized
locks( thin, deflatable, jit optimized ), improvements in JVMTI support as
Gregory points out.
 3. In garbage collection, one thread that Weldon has already started is
MMTk integration which looks promising, but while we finish that work, it
may also make sense to substitute the existing rudimentary GC with a more
functional one with better performance that can work as the default GC
outside the MMTk integrated suite.
4. We should also look at enhancements to the JITs ...and other than support
for new platforms ( 64 bit , down level platforms that support x87 but not
SSE* instructions..based on the minimum machine model we want to support eg
a pentium III running Windows/Linux )some of this work would benefit from
performance guidance...helpers should be inlined, some of the
optimizations eg., devirtualization perfected, polling to support
collection should consume less overhead, more optimized JNI invocation at
some point.
5. This is also in reference to the other thread you started about goals for
Harmony, it may help to establish some vectors that are important for us in
Harmony eg., among...1.5 and TCK compatibility, performance( benchmarking ),
startup time, memory footprint, and that in some sense will determine the
priorities. The  work to be done will fall out of this.

Feedback most welcome :-)

Thanks,
Rana


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message