C++ Interpreter

[Tom Rodriguez]

Also the ProfileInterpreter option does nothing with the C++ interpreter 
so any benchmarks which benefit from type profiling will run more slowly 
with the C++ interpreter.

tom

steve goldman wrote:
> Volker Simonis wrote:
>> If you are interested in a performance comparison between the C++ and
>> the Template Interpreter you may want to read the following blog:
>>
>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2007/11/template_vs_cin_1.html 
>>
>>
>> "Template- vs. C++-Interpreter shootout: This blog discusses the main
>> differences between the C++ and the Template Interpreter which are
>> both available within the Hotspot sources of the OpenJDK project. Some
>> performance tests with the DaCapo benchmark suite which compare the
>> two interpreters in mixed and interpreted mode on Linux/x86 and
>> Solaris/SPARC conclude the presentation."
>>
> 
> Very cool. So the results are much different (worse) for Xmixed than I 
> got in the long distant past. Server has certainly changed a lot in the 
> interim. So what compiler did you use on Solaris? Considering how 
> similar the numbers are between x86/sparc for -Xint it would seem that 
> you might have used gcc. I used to see worse behavior on sparc because 
> with gcc the interpreter could do the computed goto trick for the 
> dispatch loop and that is worth a lot.
> 
> Second if you have the time it would interesting to see the comparison 
> using client.
> 
>