Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:24:06 -0800 From: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com>, java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mozilla core... & HotSpot update Message-ID: <20020322002406.GA2086@gnuppy.monkey.org> In-Reply-To: <15514.30168.252188.732486@caddis.yogotech.com> References: <20020320233301.GA4011@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15513.7648.287464.414451@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020321000145.GA4319@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20020321142512.A65790@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20020321063724.GA6657@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15514.3199.968025.626479@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020321234309.GA1607@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15514.28841.407418.877991@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020322000416.GA1670@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15514.30168.252188.732486@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:07:52PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: > See above. We can agree to disagree here. The last talk I heard on > HotSpot implied that they are using a single thread for compilation, Possibly, I haven't gotten to the code just yet and it isn't my task to figure that out. > which is similar to the pseudo-single threaded garbage collector. (The > GC process can involve more than one thread, but only a single thread > can be active at a time). Either way, you still need to protect various parts effected with a mutex. > The complexity/overhead of multiple GC's and compilation *far* > outweighs the benefits. The compilation process isn't the same as garbage collection. Your building and manipulating a single object verse a graph of objects. bill 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?20020322002406.GA2086>