Benchmark test between Java Compiler options -javac and -ecj

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Benchmark test between Java Compiler options -javac and -ecj

ThSITC
I did just finish a benchmark test between the *javac* (The Java compiler contained only in the JDK tools.jar), and the *ecj* (The Eclipse Java compiler) when used with NetRexxC.

I shall send a detail report to the President of the RexxLA, but all figures I'm getting do indicate:

As a NetRexx user, don't worry anymore for downloading the recent Oracle/Sun JDK.

By default, or when not properly installed, NetRexxC 3.04 shall be able to compile NetRexx programs only
having the Java Runtime Package (the jre) available, and the good news are:

1.) Translation time of NetRexxC is approximately the same as ecj-compile time
2.) Javac compile time is considerable greater than ecj-compile time

In both cases, we are talking about seconds for a NetRexxC compile, however :-)

Thus, I am simply recommending:

Use the present Java Runtime Environment (...\Java\jre123456...) available on Your system and ..
... don't bother to download the JDK at all, unless You want or need it!


Happy NetRexx'ing.

Thomas Schneider

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benchmark test between Java Compiler options -javac and -ecj

Kermit Kiser
If you have time, please consider adding the output class size to your benchmark report factors. In my subjective observations, although ecj is faster than javac, the class files produced by javac are more compact.

On 2015-06-17 2:34 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
I did just finish a benchmark test between the *javac* (The Java compiler contained only in the JDK tools.jar), and the *ecj* (The Eclipse Java compiler) when used with NetRexxC.

I shall send a detail report to the President of the RexxLA, but all figures I'm getting do indicate:

As a NetRexx user, don't worry anymore for downloading the recent Oracle/Sun JDK.

By default, or when not properly installed, NetRexxC 3.04 shall be able to compile NetRexx programs only
having the Java Runtime Package (the jre) available, and the good news are:

1.) Translation time of NetRexxC is approximately the same as ecj-compile time
2.) Javac compile time is considerable greater than ecj-compile time

In both cases, we are talking about seconds for a NetRexxC compile, however :-)

Thus, I am simply recommending:

Use the present Java Runtime Environment (...\Java\jre123456...) available on Your system and ..
... don't bother to download the JDK at all, unless You want or need it!


Happy NetRexx'ing.

Thomas Schneider


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benchmark test between Java Compiler options -javac and -ecj

ThSITC
OK, Kermit :-)
=========================================================================

Am 17/06/2015 um 21:10 schrieb Kermit Kiser:
If you have time, please consider adding the output class size to your benchmark report factors. In my subjective observations, although ecj is faster than javac, the class files produced by javac are more compact.

On 2015-06-17 2:34 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
I did just finish a benchmark test between the *javac* (The Java compiler contained only in the JDK tools.jar), and the *ecj* (The Eclipse Java compiler) when used with NetRexxC.

I shall send a detail report to the President of the RexxLA, but all figures I'm getting do indicate:

As a NetRexx user, don't worry anymore for downloading the recent Oracle/Sun JDK.

By default, or when not properly installed, NetRexxC 3.04 shall be able to compile NetRexx programs only
having the Java Runtime Package (the jre) available, and the good news are:

1.) Translation time of NetRexxC is approximately the same as ecj-compile time
2.) Javac compile time is considerable greater than ecj-compile time

In both cases, we are talking about seconds for a NetRexxC compile, however :-)

Thus, I am simply recommending:

Use the present Java Runtime Environment (...\Java\jre123456...) available on Your system and ..
... don't bother to download the JDK at all, unless You want or need it!


Happy NetRexx'ing.

Thomas Schneider


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/




_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/