Re: [xmlvm-users] One small XMLVM benchmark

[Steve H. <st...@we...>]

Thanks for the tips.  Avian used pro guard but had optimizations disabled
because I was getting errors otherwise,

I don't know if the xmlvm build used proguard because I used their build
server for that one. I will check with Shai to see if they're using
proguard and what the settings are.

Steve

On Friday, December 7, 2012, Jeff Palmer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Might it not help pre-running byte code through Proguard with the number
> of optimization passes set to say 5?  Some of these static accesses might
> not even survive the process.  The nice thing might be that xmlvm does not
> have to change.  Also you can check the the performance impact with or
> without.
>
> On the blog, it said proguard was used for the Avian Port.  This was for
> size, but was the xmlvm version also pre-run through Proguard?
>
> Here is some output, pass 1, from a desktop application.  Am noticing
> that staticized methods is part of process, which might not be helpful
> here.  Do not know if it can be turned off.  When Proguard is run against
> an Android app, some optimizations are disabled, but not that one.
>
> [proguard] Ignoring unused library classes...
> [proguard]   Original number of library classes: 19088
> [proguard]   Final number of library classes:    1048
> [proguard] Printing kept classes, fields, and methods...
>       ** Removed **
> [proguard] Shrinking...
> [proguard] Removing unused program classes and class elements...
> [proguard]   Original number of program classes: 1219
> [proguard]   Final number of program classes:    910
> [proguard] Inlining subroutines...
> [proguard] Optimizing...
> [proguard]   Number of finalized classes:                 462
> [proguard]   Number of vertically merged classes:         8
> [proguard]   Number of horizontally merged classes:       27
> [proguard]   Number of removed write-only fields:         221
> [proguard]   Number of privatized fields:                 1467
> [proguard]   Number of inlined constant fields:           58
> [proguard]   Number of privatized methods:                773
> [proguard]   Number of staticized methods:                199
> [proguard]   Number of finalized methods:                 6007
> [proguard]   Number of removed method parameters:         281
> [proguard]   Number of inlined constant parameters:       233
> [proguard]   Number of inlined constant return values:    50
> [proguard]   Number of inlined short method calls:        2348
> [proguard]   Number of inlined unique method calls:       1573
> [proguard]   Number of inlined tail recursion calls:      22
> [proguard]   Number of merged code blocks:                138
> [proguard]   Number of variable peephole optimizations:   8986
> [proguard]   Number of arithmetic peephole optimizations: 258
> [proguard]   Number of cast peephole optimizations:       251
> [proguard]   Number of field peephole optimizations:      49
> [proguard]   Number of branch peephole optimizations:     3766
> [proguard]   Number of string peephole optimizations:     1148
> [proguard]   Number of simplified instructions:           943
> [proguard]   Number of removed instructions:              6557
> [proguard]   Number of removed local variables:           1196
> [proguard]   Number of removed exception blocks:          470
> [proguard]   Number of optimized local variable frames:   3028
> [proguard] Shrinking...
> [proguard] Removing unused program classes and class elements...
> [proguard]   Original number of program classes: 910
> [proguard]   Final number of program classes:    869
>
>
> Jeff Palmer
> WhatIf Squared LLC
>
> On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:53 PM, xml...@li...<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'xml...@li...');>wrote:
>
> *From: *Arno Puder <ar...@pu... <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'ar...@pu...');>>
> *Subject: **Re: [xmlvm-users] One small XMLVM benchmark*
> *Date: *December 6, 2012 8:55:46 PM EST
> *To: *Steve Hannah <st...@we... <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'st...@we...');>>
> *Cc: *"xml...@li... <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'xml...@li...');>" <xml...@li...<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'xml...@li...');>
> >
>
>
>
> well, allow me some remarks. As you already alluded to, performance
> testing is a tricky business. XMLVM cross-compiles to C code and by its
> very nature it cannot do hot-patching at runtime. This means that every
> static access to a class needs to check if that class was already
> initialized. If your application is mainly using static fields and methods
> (as did your original test case), XMLVM can't do many optimizations.
>
> XMLVM is far from being perfect, but it is doing a decent job. Mileage may
> vary depending on the details of an app. It is always a good idea to try
> different tools and pick the one that works best for you.
>
> Arno
>
>
>

-- 
Steve Hannah
Web Lite Solutions Corp.