On Apr 8, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Paul, thanks for the feedback! > See my answers inline. > > Updated webrevs: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037209/webrev.03/ > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8038261/webrev.02/ > Both look OK. >> Is it worthwhile introducing such direct coupling for a specific case, as >> that tends to increase the inter-connective complexity of the code. How much >> performance gain is achieved? > Setters/getters for primitive arrays can be special-cased in the same manner, > but these special cases don't buy much. Accessors > (ArrayAccessor.getElement*/setElement*) are very simple anyway. I haven't > seen any significant performance difference on octane. > > I'll experiment with that further. > OK. >> >> The last two re-assigments are never used and are reassigned again at the >> top of the loop: >> >> // Update cached form name's info in case an intrinsic spanning >> multiple names was encountered. >> name = lambdaForm.names[i]; >> member = name.function.member(); >> rtype = name.function.methodType().returnType(); > I did it intentionally. There were bugs when cached values become stale due > to processing of multi-name intrinsics and they were erroneously used. > There's a refactoring of how intrinsics are implemented waiting in the queue, > so I'd like to leave it as is for now. > OK. Paul.
