On 03/19/2014 06:51 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
I'm told that the diff didn't make it. I've put it in a Google drive
folder...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_GaXa6O4K5LY3Y0aHpranM3aEU/edit?usp=sharing
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
Your factoring-out of expandReplacement() method exposed an opportunity
to further optimize the code. Instead of creating intermediate
StringBuilder instance for each expandReplacement() call, this method
could append directly to resulting StringBuffer/StringBuilder, like in
the following:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/MatcherWithStringBuilder/webrev.01/
Regards, Peter
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Manson <jeremyman...@google.com>wrote:
Hi folks,
We've had this internally for a while, and I keep meaning to bring it up
here. The Matcher class has a few public methods that take StringBuffers,
and we've found it useful to add similar versions that take StringBuilders.
It has two benefits:
- Users don't have to convert from one to the other when they want to use
the method in question. The symmetry is nice.
- The StringBuilder variants are faster (if lock optimizations don't kick
in, which happens in the interpreter and the client compiler). For
interpreted / client-compiled code, we saw something like a 25% speedup on
String.replaceAll(), which calls into this code.
Any interest? Diff attached.
Jeremy
