From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31584 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2005 13:32:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31563 invoked by uid 48); 8 Aug 2005 13:32:30 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050808133230.31562.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050808100453.23283.netzberg@gmail.com> References: <20050808100453.23283.netzberg@gmail.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug java/23283] Sun's JIT faster than gcc X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08 13:32 ------- Actually for me Sun's java and GCJ take about the same at the default settings (well for GCJ compiled at -O3). Now if I change Sun's java to use the server tuned JIT, Sun's java is 2 seconds while GCJ is still 4.5 or so. timecopper:~>time ./a.out 4999358.6586720785 4.900u 0.070s 0:06.12 81.2% 0+0k 0+0io 148pf+0w copper:~>javac X.java java Xcopper:~>java X 5001132.020866861 copper:~>time java X 5000974.98115474 4.791u 0.037s 0:04.88 98.7% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w copper:~>time java -server X 5000248.791328681 3.290u 0.061s 0:03.91 85.6% 0+0k 0+0io 54pf+0w This with keeping and printing out the return value for nextDouble. This might be startup/shut down time taking into account. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Java interpreter |Sun's JIT faster than gcc |significantly faster than | |gcc?! | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23283