On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:58:36 GMT, Shaojin Wen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sorry, I was just reading the comment and not how DIGITS is initialized and
>> used.
>>
>> The _correct_ comment should be something like
>>
>> * 97 -> '9' | ('7' << 8) -> 0x3739
>>
>> so the `short` value was correct before, but not the expression to construct
>> it.
>> Again, sorry for the confusion.
>
> It was my mistake. I made the change without checking it carefully. It has
> been fixed.
@wenshao To be consistent with itself and with how `DIGITS` is initialized and
used, the comment should look as explained above, for example
* 97 -> '9' | ('7' << 8) -> 0x3739
Also, since the benchmark code was slightly changed, can you rerun it on the
platforms available to you?
Otherwise the PR looks good.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22023#discussion_r1922101631
