im guessing its because of the "receiving" side of the append
function? have not tried, but id hope that
"two " + "three " + one()
would become
"two three " + one()
?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Alexey Zinger<inline_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are quite a few optimizations with strings, for sure. Such as
> replacing concatenation using "+" operator with StringBuilder and
> concatenation of literals with a single literal (*).
>
> There's an interesting exception to that rule. The following will work as
> expected:
> "one " + "two " + "three"
> gets turned into
> "one two three"
>
> However, in the context of this: public String getOne() { return "one "; }
> this: getOne() + "two " + "three"
> will not get turned into
> getOne() + "two three"
>
> Sorry if this was off-topic.
>
> Alexey
> 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
> 1992 Kawasaki EX500
> http://azinger.blogspot.com
> http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
> http://wcollage.sourceforge.net
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marcelo Fukushima <takesh...@gmail.com>
> To: javaposse@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:32:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Optimizations? was Re: [The Java Posse] A quick and dirty way
> to throw unchecked exceptions
>
>
> i guess nowadays javac translates almost literally the source code
> into bytecode, leaving the hard work for JIT
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Christian
> Catchpole<christ...@catchpole.net> wrote:
>>
>> of course it's need a return if it's NOT being JITted... im talking a
>> load of crap tonight.. aload_0 f crap.. get it! :)
>>
>> On Aug 26, 8:09 pm, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net>
>> wrote:
>>> yeah, don't take too much notice of that. i noticed that if you
>>> disassemble a "throw", it doesn't have a return. but the a=a does.
>>> maybe its requirement of bytecode that a method that does return,
>>> finishes with return byte code. but its like Java strings being a
>>> char array with a size. there's no need to terminate it. it cant run
>>> off the end.
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 7:53 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Christian Catchpole wrote:
>>> > > Compile this.. (any package you like, or no package at all)
>>>
>>> > > public class Rethrow {
>>> > > public static void unchecked(Throwable t) {
>>> > > t=t;
>>> > > }
>>> > > }
>>>
>>> > > javap reports the byte code as..
>>>
>>> > > public static void unchecked(java.lang.Throwable);
>>> > > Code:
>>> > > Stack=1, Locals=1, Args_size=1
>>> > > 0: aload_0
>>> > > 1: astore_0
>>> > > 2: return
>>>
>>> > I'm surprised - I expected that the compiler would optimize out the
>>> > useless operation and only output the return...
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
>>> > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
>>> > weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/blog
>>> > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it - mobile: +39 348.150.6941
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://mapsdev.blogspot.com/
> Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima
>
>
> >
>
--
http://mapsdev.blogspot.com/
Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
