jit

Being that properties are just methods under the hood, it's understandable that the performance of any logic they might perform may or may not improve performance - so it's understandable why the JIT needs to check if methods are worth inlining. Automatic properties however (as far as I understand) cannot have any logic, and simply return or set the value of the underlying field. As far as I know, automatic properties are treated by the Compiler and the JIT just like any other methods. (Everything below will rely on the assumption that the above paragraph is correct.) Value Type properties

The documentation seems to be wrong. Could someone tell me which is true? In Performance Myths section is: On devices without a JIT, caching field accesses is about 20% faster than repeatedly accesssing the field. With a JIT, field access costs about the same as local access. In Avoid Internal Getters/Setters section is: Without a JIT, direct field access is about 3x faster than invoking a trivial getter. With the JIT (where direct field access is as cheap as accessing a local), direct field access is about 7x faster than invoking a trivial getter. It's clear that without JIT local access is

I just read that Android has a 450% performance improvement because it added a JIT compiler , I know what JIT is, but I don't really understand why is it faster than normal compiled code? or what's the difference with the older approach from the Android platform (the Java like run compiled bytecode). Thanks! EDIT: This is hugely interesting, thanks!, I wish I could pick every answer as correct :) First a disclaimer, I'm not at all familiar with Android. Anyway... There are two applications of JIT compilation that I am familiar with. One is to convert from byte-codes into the actual machine

Just kick started with Angular 2. What are the various Bootstrapping options in angular 2? Why is that when I make a change and refresh the index.html takes little time to retrieve the HTML markups? Differences between them There are two options Dynamic bootstrapping compiler used JIT (Just in Time). dynamically compiles the ts files in the browser. this is the reason the index.html takes little time to retrieve the markups. main.ts contains the following import { platformBrowserDynamic } from '@angular/platform-browser-dynamic'; import { AppModule } from './app.module'; platformBrowserDynamic

Is there a performance difference between using Collections.emptyList() or an empty ArrayList , especially when using a JIT compiler? I could imagine that - for example - the JIT compiler doesn't do inlining or static method calls because the executed method depends on the type. Edit I know that Collections.emptyList() returns an immutable list while ArrayList is mutable object. What I mean is that if I pass one or the other to a method as a parameter and the method doesn't modify the list does that restrict the possibilities for the JIT compiler to optimize the method? A simple example (just

There's Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() and Assembly.GetCallingAssembly() . Note that GetCallingAssembly() has a Remark mentioning that depending on how JIT inlining behaves it may be possible that one method is (or is not) inlined into another and so GetCallingAssembly() returns varying results. Now how is GetExecutingAssembly() different? JIT inlining could technically inline the code that calls GetExecutingAssembly() and so that code now belongs to a different assembly and depending on whether that happened GetExecutingAssembly() can just as well produce varying results. Why doesn't

What is the effect of the "Suppress JIT optimization on module load" debugging option? I have recently had to turn it off to deal to be able to successfully debug an app that uses a COM component. What do I risk by turning it off? Suppressing JIT optimization means you are debugging non-optimized code. The code runs a bit slower because it is not optimized, but your debugging experience is much more thorough. Debugging optimized code is harder and recommended only if you encounter a bug that occurs in optimized code but cannot be reproduced in the non-optimized version. If you clear the

I am instrumenting a class file during runtime for various purposes. I'm using a JVMTI agent to that end. My strategy to instrument a method is to call RetransformClasses function to invoke ClassFileLoadHook . This strategy works fine for all the methods which have any further invocation after the time of instrumentation because actual instrumentation happens at subsequent function call, but it doesn't work for any method which does not have further invocations like main function in a program. I want to instrument a method on the fly during its execution. I want some procedure like On-Stack

"Consider a typical Windows x86 or AMD64 architecture, the memory is divided in executable sections that cannot be written to and data sections that can be written to but cannot be executed (think DEP)." "JIT compiles methods in-memory, does (generally) not store anything to disk, instead moves it around where the next instruction pointer can reach it, changes the current instruction pointer (pointing to the JIT) to point to the newly generated code and then executes it." These two paragraphs, while a bit over-simplified, are what I basically understand of JIT and Windows' memory model. I also

A while back I provided an answer to this question . Objective: count the number of values in this matrix that are in the [3 6] range: A = [2 3 4 5 6 7; 7 6 5 4 3 2] I came up with 12 different ways to do it: count = numel(A( A(:)>3 & A(:)<6 )) %# (1) count = length(A( A(:)>3 & A(:)<6 )) %# (2) count = nnz( A(:)>3 & A(:)<6 ) %# (3) count = sum( A(:)>3 & A(:)<6 ) %# (4) Ac = A(:); count = numel(A( Ac>3 & Ac<6 )) %# (5,6,7,8) %# prevents double expansion %# similar for length(), nnz(), sum(), %# in the same order as (1)-(4) count = numel(A( abs(A-(6+3)/2)<3/2 )) %# (9,10,11,12) %# prevents