Re: java.lang.StrictMath

[Per Bothner]

Eric Blake wrote:
> But maybe it
> is worth it after all for StrictMath to have native implementations,

Note I am not saying that StrictMath should have native implementations,
only that it *may*, *if* the results are the same.

> Is the overhead of calling a native method offset by the
> speed of doing this number crunching without going through bytecode?

It depends.  For GCJ, there is no overhead for calling a native method,
beyond the normal method calling overhead, which is the same as in C++.
(For virtual calls.  Interface calls are a different matter.)  For JDK,
or other system with a good JIT, it is probably faster to use Java code.
--
        --Per Bothner
address@hidden   http://www.bothner.com/per/