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 14:05:56 GMT
Don't understand. Can you pls detail your comment?

On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:
> If this would be VM-side automatically produced configuration file...
>
> WBR,
>    Pavel.
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> btw, because adding new module is rare case, manually modifying the
>> bootclasspath.properties is not an issue?
>>
>> If so, can I conclude adding another property file with same update
>> frequency as bootclasspath would be fine as well?
>>
>> Pls kindly correct me if my understanding is wrong.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wenlong,
>>>
>>> Note, that bootclasspath.properties is only changed on adding new
>>> module. This is pretty rare occasion, I believe.
>>>
>>> WBR,
>>>    Pavel.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> thx,
>>>> Wenlong
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message