On 8/29/20 1:19 PM, Corey Ashford wrote:
Hi Roger,
Thanks for your reply and thoughts! Comments interspersed below:
On 8/28/20 10:54 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
...
Comparing with the way that the Base64 encoder was intrinsified, the
method that is intrinsified should have a method body that does
the same function, so it is interchangable. That likely will just shift
the "fast path" code into the decodeBlock method.
Keeping the symmetry between encoder and decoder will
make it easier to maintain the code.
Good point. I'll investigate what this looks like in terms of the
actual code, and will report back (perhaps in a new webrev).
Having looked at this again, I don't think it makes sense. One thing
that differs significantly from the encodeBlock intrinsic is that the
decodeBlock intrinsic only needs to process a prefix of the data, and so
it can leave virtually any amount of data at the end of the src buffer
unprocessed, where as with the encodeBlock intrinsic, if it exists, it
must process the entire buffer.
In the (common) case where the decodeBlock intrinsic returns not having
processed everything, it still needs to call the Java code, and if that
Java code is "replaced" by the intrinsic, it's inaccessible.
Is there something I'm overlooking here? Basically I want the decode
API to behave differently than the encode API, mostly to make the
arch-specific intrinsic easier to implement. If that's not acceptable,
then I need to rethink the API, and also figure out how to deal with the
illegal character case. The latter could perhaps be done by throwing an
exception from the intrinsic, or maybe by returning a negative length
that specifies the index of the illegal src byte, and then have the Java
code throw the exception).
Regards,
- Corey
