SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Richard M. Smith who wrote (5404)11/8/1997 7:15:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt  Read Replies (2) of 64865
 
There's nothing wrong with removing dead code as an optimization. It would be preferable, however, for the detection of the dead code to be more general than a comparison with known dead code in a benchmark!

I think these events have shown the Pendragon benchmark is flawed, but Sun could have handled things better by disclosing that fact on its own. I'd like to know how they initially discovered the dead code -- was it found by an earlier version of the JVM (so that all the special test did was speed the detection of what would have been eliminated anyway) or did they do some analysis unavailable to the JVM? Would a decent (e.g., would Sun's) Java interpreter ever generate such dead code (or was the Pendragon code totally unrealistic of what could be expected in real code)? And how fast does the JVM run the code WITHOUT the benchmark-specific test (isn't that what we really want to know)?

BTW, I don't think the use of benchmark-specific code is anything new to the industry.

JMHO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News