harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [drlvm][jit] Code review of the following issue - [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-3246) [drlvm][jit][opt] Jitted code can not be executed on non-SSE2 platforms
Date Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:02:32 GMT
Sweet. I'll be waiting for the JIRA issue. Thanks.

-Nathan

On 4/20/07, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think yes. I'm going to test and provide the next patch on Monday. It will
> enable JET for all methods without double ops.
>
> On 4/21/07, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine with limiting this patch and setting up the next steps.
> > Should we create some JIRAs for those steps?
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
> > On 4/20/07, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/21/07, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 4/19/07, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > JET replies on SSE2 instructions and this patch does not fix it.
The
> > > > patch
> > > > > fixes only OPT.
> > > > > "client" mode contains JET as a first JIT, but I added code to JET
> > to
> > > > check
> > > > > if SSE2 is available and refuse compilation if not.
> > > > > The second JIT in 'client' mode is OPT and after JET is refused to
> > > > compile a
> > > > > method, OPT compiles it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have another idea to check in JET if method contains double ops
> > and
> > > > > compile it if it does not. It will improve startup time and JVMTI
> > > > support
> > > > > significantly before JET is able to support 'doubles' on i586,
> > because
> > > > of
> > > > > only small number of methods use doubles.
> > > >
> > > > Good idea. This above on 586/P3 can be phase I of P3 support. The rest
> > > > is somewhat lower priority imho. Since the minimum it is being tested
> > > > on is P3, why not call it P3?
> > >
> > >
> > >  The first name was p5. My first patch with cpuid integration use
> > > 'p3' as the name. The only difference in the second patch is
> > > 'p3' name changed to 'i586'. So we have a choice here :)
> > > Actually I vote for the last
> > > name. However I do not think the name is really matters here. Comments
> > in
> > > the file give detailed description for those who interested in details.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mikhail Fursov
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mikhail Fursov
>

Mime
View raw message