-
Enhancement
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
-
P5
-
None
-
5.0
-
generic
-
generic
###@###.### writes:
I did some work on this area nearly 3 years ago. I've attached an
ancient email with some results. The conclusions I drew then were:
...
* running "javac *.java" is MUCH faster than running "javac a.java b.java ........."
> > > I have ONE more performance improvement I can do -- which would probably cut
> > > the fastjavac and/or javac.exe time by 25-50%
> > >
> > > Namely -- running it with "*.java", once in each directory, instead of giving
> > > it a long list of full path filenames. This, however, takes more time than
> > > I'm willing to do without an official bug to work on.
###@###.### 2005-04-20 06:23:41 GMT
I did some work on this area nearly 3 years ago. I've attached an
ancient email with some results. The conclusions I drew then were:
...
* running "javac *.java" is MUCH faster than running "javac a.java b.java ........."
> > > I have ONE more performance improvement I can do -- which would probably cut
> > > the fastjavac and/or javac.exe time by 25-50%
> > >
> > > Namely -- running it with "*.java", once in each directory, instead of giving
> > > it a long list of full path filenames. This, however, takes more time than
> > > I'm willing to do without an official bug to work on.
###@###.### 2005-04-20 06:23:41 GMT