On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 15:48:55 GMT, Claes Redestad <redes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Going from `jla.newStringNoRepl(bytes, ISO_...)` to >> `jla.newStringLatin1NoRepl(bytes)` isn't much of a code simplification, so >> this distracts a bit from the bulk of the changes in this PR. I agree that >> it *might* help inlining since the former calls into a large method, but I >> think we ought to focus on one thing at a time so if this doesn't >> significantly help on the benchmarks we have available it would be better to >> leave it out for now. > > I'll have a look at #14655 though I note that @RogerRiggs has already > commented that this might not carry its own weight. These internal API > bridges are a nuisance so we need to take care to make sure that any addition > is actually necessary, not just convenient for the time being. Can you help me create an issue for jla.newStringNoRepl? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15555#discussion_r1320063049
