From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 15:17:15 EST
On Dec 11, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 11, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> optimize empty finalizers away, step 1.
>>
>> > Btw, this had brought down the library compile time from 28 to 26 seconds
>> > again. (Still my unofficial performance measure).
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> > The next step, of course, is to avoid calls to finalizeObject at all.
>>
>> Do you really think this will make so much difference?
> Well, it will make some difference. I think the soft_instanceof calls
> to check for thread classes add up.
Wouldn't it be simpler to arrange that Thread.finalize() calls a
native method (or is itself a native method) that does whatever we
need to finalize a Thread? This would obviate the need for a second
kind of test.
Of course, someone might fail to call super.finalize() in a subclass
of Thread, but then it's not our fault. Should we care about this
case?
> No, the point is to avoid that they're even moved to the finaliser list.
I'm not sure how much that accounts for performance. Not that I think
it's won't gain us anything, I'm just pondering if it's worth doing.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:12 EDT