This is the mail archive of the java-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GCJ project. See the GCJ home page for more information.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Per Bothner writes: > On the order hand, one could change gcj to generate code that > is portable to any jvm that supports jni. But there is no point > in that either, since the resulting code will be *slower* than > using an interpreter (due to all the required jni calls). I'm curious to hear what evidence and/or conjecture you use to make this point, ie. that JNI native methods would be (on average) slower than interpreting the same method. JNI does have a lot of overhead, etc. so it's entirely plausible. I'm wondering however if you have actually verified this in some way. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com