On 09/11/2013 09:01 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 09/11/2013 08:23 PM, Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~skuksenko/jsr335/8024635/webrev.00/
>
> As much as I hate to see the hand code tweaking instead of relying on
> compiler to do it's job, I understand this is about interpreter. Seems
> good then.
>
> * Formatting: "if(...)" should be "if (...")
Will do
>
> * Formatting: "//NPE" should be "// null check"
I just preserve exiting comments.
Decided don't modify original code which is not important to required
functionality.
>
> * Formatting: "desc = " should be "desc = "
>
> * Formatting: this one should not use braces (for consistency with other
> usages)?
> 364 if(nptype == null) { //NPE
> 365 throw new NullPointerException();
> 366 }
Let ask code owner.
>
> * Explicit null-checks: implicits via .getClass and .equals always
> bothered me in j.l.i.*; the idea was seemingly to piggyback on the
> compiler intrinsics.
anyway it is doesn't matter after C1/C2
> Any idea what's the cost of using
> Objects.requireNonNull there?
If we are running under the interpreter Objects.requireNonNull costs
enough to eliminate benefits from this fine tuning.
--
Best regards,
Sergey Kuksenko
