On 01/30/2012 10:17 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
I would also expect clone to run a bit faster than copy constructor, if for
nothing else than clone not executing any constructor; this perf diff would
probably be more noticeable in interpreter as compiler may inline
constructor. In addition, I'd also think that clone can basically be
equivalent to memcpy which should be faster.
It depends if the class if final or not.
If the class is not final the VM will have to add a guard before calling
Object.clone().
Object.clone() is intrinsified (lookup for 'intrinsics' in the source code)
so it will do a memcopy. A far as I remember, memcopy is slower that copying
fields one by one if there is a few fields (otherwise it's faster).
Then you need a checkcast at the end and as far as I remember, the VM
doesn't remove it.
So as Tom said, if the class is final, using a copy constructor is
usually faster.
Anyway, this is too Hotspot specific and may change in the future,
moreover I've never seen a call clone() or to a copy constructor
being the performance bottleneck.
Stupid algorithms and bad choices of the data structures are far more
frequent.
Rémi
Sent from my phone
On Jan 30, 2012 4:08 PM, "Ulf Zibis"<ulf.zi...@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 30.01.2012 14:28, schrieb Tom Hawtin:
On 30/01/2012 13:16, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Isn't cloning faster than normal instantiation?
I can imagine, that behind the scenes cloning mainly only needs to
duplicate the binary footprint of an object.
I don't see a good reason why it should be (equally, I've not tried
benchmarking).
For the immediate fields of an object, (partial) bitwise copying "by
hand" should be of comparable performance to a bitwise clone. For copying
the referenced objects, there is no benefit for the clone.
Is there anybody, who knows this exactly, e.g. in reference to Hotspot
runtime?
-Ulf
