tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
Subject Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
Date Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:48:47 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chuck,

On 3/15/2011 9:02 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net] 
>> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
> 
>> A 32-bit process, using 32-bit pointers, will enjoy a 2x speedup for
>> those types of data.
> 
> Also, a Java int, when allocated on the stack, must take up the same
> number of bits as a pointer.  Consequently, in a 64-bit JVM the stack
> slots are bigger for primitive values, and have unused bits in them
> for everything except pointers.  (Allocations on the heap do not
> include the unused bits, at least in current JVM versions.)

A Java int is defined to be 32-bits. Why would it have to be word-length
on the stack? Is that documented anywhere, or does it just end up being
the reality of the JVM implementations?

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1/fE8ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCkyQCfUsPTmc/UwTGPv/rREr2XJqrv
2ooAoIkGAsLrAFpHilwvGzm1FgjGvvpD
=ovb8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message