Hi Ivan,
Thanks for the reviews. Again, I will publish the updated webrevs after
rewiring for Maurizio's comments.
On 11/27/2015 02:33 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
> 1) As you touch Long.java anyway, could you change
> 508 while (i <= Integer.MIN_VALUE) {
> to
> 508 while (i < Integer.MIN_VALUE) {
> , which may save us a half of nanosecond on some inputs?
>
> And the same on the line# 563.
No, I think that deserves a separate round of Long/Integer.getChars
cleanups, if any. Let's not clobber the Indy String Concat with a
general optimization in the class library.
> 2) Integer.java and Long.java
> In the javadoc, just for a sake of accuracy:
> 550 * @return index of the most significant digit *or minus sign,
> if present*
Yes, this is good. Fixed.
> 3) StringConcatFactory.java
> 255 acc = new StringBuilder();
> wouldn't it be a bit more efficient to do `acc.setLength(0)`?
Yes, this is good too. Fixed.
> 4) StringConcatFactory.java
>
> 586 try {
> 587 mh = generate(caller, mt, rec);
> 588 } catch (Throwable t) {
> 589 if (t instanceof StringConcatException) {
> 590 throw (StringConcatException)t;
> 591 } else {
> 592 throw new StringConcatException("Generator
> failed", t);
> 593 }
> 594 }
>
> it seems to be a bit more straight-forward:
> try {
> mh = generate(caller, mt, rec);
> } catch (StringConcatException sce) {
> throw sce;
> } catch (Throwable t) {
> throw new StringConcatException("Generator failed", t);
> }
Ah, right, this is better, fixed.
Thanks,
-Aleksey
