From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24729 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2005 14:31:46 -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 24711 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2005 14:31:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050823143146.24710.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at klomp 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 for Random.nextDouble X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at klomp dot org 2005-08-23 14:31 ------- Subject: Re: Sun's JIT faster than gcc for Random.nextDouble It looks like the problem is that we don't remove the synchronization for nextDouble() even though the test case is single-threaded. qprof: /tmp/x: 299 samples, 299 counts X::main(JArray*):X.java:8 5 ( 2%) libc.so.6(memchr) 1 ( 0%) libgcj.so.6 2 ( 1%) libgcj.so.6(_Jv_MonitorEnter) 110 ( 37%) libgcj.so.6(_Jv_MonitorExit) 108 ( 36%) libgcj.so.6(_ZN4java4util6Random4nextEi) 27 ( 9%) libgcj.so.6(_ZN4java4util6Random10nextDoubleEv) 46 ( 15%) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23283