Looks fine to me! Mike
On Sep 22 2014, at 15:34 , Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Aleksey, > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com> > wrote: > >> Hm, and this compiler transformation works in strictfp context? I hope >> compilers do the constant folding in strictfp/fdlibm mode… > > Yes. > >> I would probably just go and declare the private compile-time constants. >> This is safer, since: a) you are not at the mercy of optimizing compiler >> anymore (have you tried the benchmark with C1?); b) the initializing >> expressions are FP-strict, less opportunity for hard to diagnose numeric >> problem. > > I created an alternate webrev using compile-time constants per your > suggestion: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/4477961/webrev.01/ > > The performance improvement is similar to that cited for webrev.00. > > If this version is preferable it will need approval from a JDK 9 Reviewer, of > course. > > Thanks, > > Brian
