EVALUATION
JPSE team will need to handle this one. It appears an update release may be the suspect. More testing is being done.
###@###.### 2002-09-25
We've identified a large part for the performance regression.
Here is what's explained by Chuck Rasbold:
This is why: The fix for 4697245 triggers a bailout by having ciTypeFlow
indicate a trap at bci 0.
The fix for 4684993 removes a ciTypeFlow problem that could put a trap
at an invoke bytecode, possibly at bci 0. If you have the 4697245 fix
but not the 4684993 fix (like SpecJBB does in those three methods) a
method will fail to compile and never re-attempt.
We never had this problem in hopper since the 4684993 fix went in first.
###@###.### 2002-09-25
I've verified the binary that Mingyao sent me and this completely
eliminates the performance regression. I've run 6 runs of jbb and
across all warehouses I'm seeing performance differences in the 1/2%
range, non statistically significant (i.e. it looks like the runs come
from the same jvm).
###@###.### 2002-09-27
Close as a duplicate of 4684993, which was integrated into 1.4.0_03.
###@###.### 2002-09-30