On Jun 27, 2013, at 4:18 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 10:37 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This version seems correct. Maybe just replace double volatile read at
>> length re-check with a single one:
>>
>> private static BigInteger getRadixConversionCache(int radix, int
>> exponent) {
>> BigInteger[] cacheLine = powerCache[radix]; // volatile read
>> if (exponent < cacheLine.length)
>> return cacheLine[exponent];
>>
>> int oldLength = cacheLine.length;
>> cacheLine = Arrays.copyOf(cacheLine, exponent + 1);
>> for (int i = oldLength; i <= exponent; i++)
>> cacheLine[i] = cacheLine[i - 1].pow(2);
>>
>> BigInteger[][] pc = powerCache; // volatile read again
>> if (exponent >= pc[radix].length) {
>> pc = pc.clone();
>> pc[radix] = cacheLine;
>> powerCache = pc; // volatile write, publish
>> }
>> return cacheLine[exponent];
>> }
>>
>
> Yes, I'm voting for this one. All other improvements Peter had
> suggested, while interesting, seem to not to worth the trouble.
Are there any objections to this version (as included above)?
Brian
