goals for fc4?
Tom Tromey
tromey at redhat.com
Mon Jan 17 23:41:39 UTC 2005
>>>>> "Chip" == Chip Turner <cturner at redhat.com> writes:
Chip> I think at best the jury is still out on how fast gcj is
Chip> vs a hotspot-optimizing jvm for "real world" use.
Best performance depends on a lot of factors, not just your
application but also how you plan to deploy it. For instance, using
gcj to build shared libraries may be a winner when you expect to be
reusing that library in several running processes, even if the
generated code looks marginally slower.
gcj and hotspot-like JITs have different optimization opportunities
available to them. Another factor is how you compile your code with
gcj; the new binary compatibility ABI provides flexibility at the cost
of some performance. The usual answer is "try your program and see".
On smaller-than-real-applications benchmarks, gcj fares pretty well
against the best JITs (especially considering how few gcj-specific
optimizations we've added to gcc, e.g. we still haven't implemented
array bounds check removal). The 1.5 release from Sun looks like it
pulled ahead a little bit, though you can still construct tests where
gcj does better. I would expect some bounce from gcc in the 4.1 time
frame, though, as more high-level optimizations are written.
As a practical matter touching on Fedora, gcj remains the "best" way
to deliver java applications on a free system. In my opinion, other
free VMs have unacceptable performance, unacceptable platform
coverage, or both.
Tom
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list