RE: Question concerning speedup of Jade

Subject: RE: Question concerning speedup of Jade
From: Peter Nilsson <pnidv96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 22:27:23 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Didier PH Martin wrote:

> Drawbacks:
> Some OS like Linux do not have yet the concept of memory mapped file. Some

Hope you don't get flamed:-) Linux has mmap and has had it for a long

Anyway, it is no big deal. If a system doesn't support mmap, or a file
can't be mmaped for some reason, you may always fallback to read/write. I
think the big performance win is that we avoid
parsing/compiling/optimizing and not the mmap.

> OS like Solaris, or NT have memory mapped file provisions (I do not know for
> AIX, IRIX, Ultrix, OS2, NextStep). Memory mapped file object data base are
> not present on all platforms. For example PSE C++ is only available on
> Windows. If someone knows about a multi-platform memory mapped ODB or memory
> mapped file vendor, this could resolve the case. However, Jade would not be
> free anymore. However, the memory mapped file, if present on the target OS,
> memory mapped file could to retained as a solution
One should separate the implementation of the caching mechanism so a user
can link with what is available. A simple mmap-based implementation
shouldn't be very hard to do and ship with jade. I someone wants a ODB,
then make the interface.

> But Jade do not have the concept of byte code. It is internally a big bunch
> of objects created on the heap (on on the stack) like any other C++ program
> has.
In my view, the Insn class and its children are a kind of "byte-code",
even if not represented as a byte stream.

> Hope this was not too technical :-)
Not for me:-)

I think the solution to this problem is not very hard. We only need to
find time to implement it:-(

'(?P . (?e . (?t . (?e . (?r)))))

 DSSSList info and archive:

Current Thread