harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wenlong Li" <wenl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VM] On-demand class library parsing is ready to commit
Date Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:48:17 GMT
Thx for your advice. Alexey.

Here I have one question: do you know how the bootclasspath.properties
is maintained, manually or automatically?

Another comment is I would like to treat the patch as DRLVM specific
optimization, e.g., it targets for improving VM creation time. So that
is possible to move all updates to DRLVM part to eliminate potential
modularity and compatibility problem.


On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
<aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Wenlong.
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> btw, Alexey, Let's go back to discuss whether there is a need to
>> include this feature in Harmony, given 17% performance gain in Linux
>> when using your methodology. For windows test, I will double check the
>> backgroud process as you pointed out.
> My opinion was already expressed after I had finished the tests from
> my side: the boost can be achieved in specific conditions, so whether
> it's worth including into Harmony really depends on how much mess the
> patch would introduce besides the "performance boost". From what I
> see, the patch obliges the maintainer to maintain the correct mapping
> between jars and Java packages. This new feature is also spread
> between Classlib and VM, but it seems like DRLVM specific. In this
> case I would rather stay without the patch.
> Personally (if I'll be committer) I would accept the patch with two
> serious modifications:
>  1. Stay within DRLVM, do not introduce this feature into Classlib,
> get the thing tested and evolved on DRLVM side. Otherwise it might
> break the compatibility with other VMs.
>  2. Make the mapping generated automatically (during build process?)
> to free the burden for maintainers.
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.

View raw message