On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Anthony Hannan wrote:

> Scott A Crosby <crosby at qwes.math.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > Excellent news... I've integrated the new methodcache into the BC image.
>
> Thanks for working on this, Scott.  Its great to see such speed
> improvements.
>

Yep, by the time everything thats already done gets integrated in, the VM
will be nearly twice the speed. (I've got a list of various outstanding
things for the VM, and their actual or estimated gains.)

> What do you mean?  How is BC clobbering class definitions?

What Tim said. Thus I don't plan on doing too much integration work,
except for occasional testing, till BC is stabalized.

> > Any idea if/when the BC stuff will support running all of the macrobenchmarks?
>
> Attached are fixes for macroBenchmarks for BC.  All work except the
> first benchmark (decompiling not implemented yet).  I had to make some
> small changes to MessageTally and macroBenchmark3 so the comparison to
> the standard image may not be accurate, but I think it will be close
> enough.

Run and tested, but macrobenchmark3 (#4) really isn't comparable, and #2
isn't comparable either. So, there's nothing really new here. A few other
entries changed by a second, but thats noise. I nuked my BC-only VM, so I
won't rerun for that. (No point anyways.)

  >       STOCK   MC      BC      BC+MC
  > 1      54908   27235      -       -
  > 2     294773  219893      -   54632[*]
  > 3     132697   56784  83456   41692
  > 4      54756   30076      -  207758
  > 5          -       -      -       -
  > 6      19057   14462  18267   11682
  > 7      14544   11520  15518    8367
  >
  > These are all on a P2-450

[*] This number is wrong, it builds tiles for 9 methods, when the others
are run with 35.


Scott