Eric Bodden wrote:
>APROVE:
>Do we have this new indexing scheme working so that I can try and see if
>Aprove now does any better?
>
>
No, not yet. Sorry.
>JIGSAW:
>Tonight I tracked down a bug in the native AspectJ LOR aspect. The
>problem was that this aspect would not pick up all the LORs while the
>tracematch would (under certain circumstances). Stangely after a long
>time of debugging it turned out that the ReferenceMap implementation of
>Jakarta Commons Collections was the problem! I would never have thought
>that this class has a bug but it quite seems so: Reproducably, entries
>were deleted too early. I then replaced the map by the WeakHashMap of
>the JDK (we need no identity map here, since I only have Threads as keys
>and those do not implement "equals" anyway) and it all worked fine!
>
>
Really? Please describe in detail what the bug was; we are relying on
the Commons Collections classes in various places and should be aware of
any problems with it.
>Anyway - I am not entirely sure how to interpret the benchmark output
>(help on that is appreciated) but assuming that the rightmost column
>shows timestamps then the TM version seems to be only about 70% slower
>in my runs. This is quite astonishing, especially given that the regular
>expression is so large. So I guess I will have to verify this though
>further runs... I am confident that we get reliable numbers within the
>next day or two. But anyway it was quite difficult to get the native AJ
>aspect right. So at least in terms of usability and maintainability, TMs
>win here quite clearly.
>
>
The rightmost column doesn't show timestamps but memory usage
(incidentally, looking at BenchMain.java would've been the best way of
finding out what BenchMain.class prints). The time taken up to each
iteration is in the second column; note these are not timestamps but
incremental durations, so you just need to look at the last line. Does
this make results look dramatically bad for us?
Hope this helps.
- P
Received on Thu Mar 02 09:48:48 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 06 2007 - 16:13:27 GMT