On 11/05/2014 12:23 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: > On 2014-11-04 22:25, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> On 04.11.2014 23:57, Claes Redestad wrote: >> - Would we be better off asserting (mh == null) instead of breaking and >> asserting afterwards? > > assert(mh != null) does makes it more readable... > >> - Would we save a few more bytecodes by using the method-local "final >> int ARRAYS_COUNT" to handle the magic number, instead of doing a >> full-blown field? Ditto for FILL_ARRAYS_COUNT. > > ... and renders ARRAYS_COUNT redundant. > > The FILL_ARRAYS_COUNT is already used elsewhere, though. > > New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8062180/webrev.01
Looks good to me. I would still introduce a final local variable for magic number 11, but that's a matter of personal style. > Ran with the updated code, 20k forks get the error down and establish > the improvement statistically: > > Benchmark Mode Samples Score Score error Units > loadMethodHandleImplLazy ss 20000 40.257 0.102 ms > loadMethodHandleImplLazy ss 20000 39.340 0.095 ms Now we are talking. -Aleksey.
