Hi all
I finally got my test setup sorted out and I am happy to report that
there is indeed a big improvement in compiled jacl speed.
jacl code = 134 seconds
compiled with no optimizations = 116 seconds
compiled with all optimizations (+O) = 63 seconds
Hence repetitive execution (1000's of times) of small jacl procedures in
a large Java application definitely is improved by the new compiler.
Now that I can see substantial improvements I will be examining the jacl
code as well to take better advantage of the compiler.
Thank you very much Mo DeJong.
Cheers
Martti
>
> I sincerely apologize for my previous post. The timing result for the
> compiled jacl code is wrong. I failed to recognize that the program was
> sourcing the raw jacl file as well and hence was actually interpreting
> the jacl code directly. I will investigate the setup some more to see if
> I can get a real result for compiled jacl code.
>
>
> Martti Tienhaara wrote:
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. A new Tcl to Java compiler for Xmas (Mo DeJong)
>>>
>> This is a great addition for the Jacl world. However I found that it
>> doesn't provide any improvement when executing a large number of small
>> procedures. I suspect speed improvements only occur when the overhead of
>> setting up the environment for the compiled version at runtime is small
>> compared to the execution time of the compiled code.
>>
>> For example 36,000 executions with various arguments of a simple
>> procedure with about 50 lines of code gave total runtimes of
>>
>> raw jacl = 138 seconds
>> compiled jacl = 144 seconds
>> coded in java = 5 seconds
>>
>> This is embedded in a real application so a lot of execution time was
>> consumed elsewhere in the Java code.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing if anyone else has done any comparisons
>> for larger jacl code procedures.
>>
>> Cheers
--
Martti Tienhaara (ma...@da...)
DASH Software Ltd.
|
