Dynamic class loading

Archie Cobbs archie@whistle.com
Sat May 1 16:09:00 GMT 1999

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 Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com

More information about the Java mailing list