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 14:55:10 GMT
Classes are added to class library from time to time. I'm not sure how
it can be possible to track these changes manually.

WBR,
    Pavel.


On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, one more question: bootclasspath.properties is classlib
> specific file, why we could not make a vm specific file manually? Just
> curious to know the possible reason. :)
>
> thx,
> Wenlong
>
> 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