harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Pervov" <pmcfi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VM] On-demand class library parsing is ready to commit
Date Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:00:05 GMT
If this would be VM-side automatically produced configuration file...


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.

View raw message