Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:40:01 -0700 From: Steve Byrne <sbb@freegate.com> To: alk@pobox.com Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Daemonising a Java Process: Possible? Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980909134001.0099d100@mailhost.hq.freegate.com> In-Reply-To: <13814.52020.566050.184787@compound.east> References: <13813.27934.606377.693358@compound.east> <199809082154.WAA00626@fdy2.demon.co.uk> <13814.46288.737653.240366@compound.east> <3.0.5.32.19980909105902.00979b70@mailhost.hq.freegate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:43 PM 9/9/98 -0500, Tony Kimball wrote: > >I think my point was not clear to you: gjc was not designed as jit, >i.e. as a component of a long-lived virtual machine. GC in the >generated code and GC in the compiler itself being entirely distinct >issues, and there being no requirement for the compiler not to leak >through successive invokations (since "power-cycle" garbage collection >is inherent in the invokation model), my supposition was that memory >management in the compiler itself will be one of the first-order tasks >required to use gjc as jit, on the assumption that the text/data/bss >are persistently linked into the jvm. Gotcha -- I wonder if performance will be adequate in a jit role, or if the pauses while the compiler operates will be too distracting. Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19980909134001.0099d100>