harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Egor Pasko <egor.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] jre bundle size
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:53:32 GMT
On the 0x373 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
> Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > Even in drlvm we have a lot of dll's, and I am not sure that this is a
> > bad thing. It allows the components to be more modular and actually
> > can reduce memory footprint, we just have to be more judicious about
> > what we load at startup. We could also drop things like gc_cc.dll etc.
> > if we really need to.
> 
> Certainly helps when there is sharing rather than copying of code/data.
>  And if the DLLs are optional functionality then it allows users to
> customize the runtime that much easier.  For example, the IBM VME can
> tolerate the removal of the JIT DLL such that (obviously) you only get
> the interpreter functionality, same for some diagnostics, etc.  For
> people who want to reduce the disk/in memory footprint they can tailor
> it to suit.
> 
> > Not sure why distribution size is a big problem, it is the memory
> > image size that seems more important.
> 
> Ideally we want both of course<g> but I agree that we should plan to
> distribute the full set of functionality (the big disk option) and allow
> people to remove unwanted function as they see fit.

Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU
implementation helps? And did anyone experiment with CU effect on
DaCapo performance?

not suspicious, just interested..

-- 
Egor Pasko


Mime
View raw message