On Mon, 5 May 2025 17:32:19 GMT, Roger Riggs <rri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Refactor AbstractStringBuilder to maintain consistency among count, coder,
>> and value buffers while the buffer capacity is being expanded and/or
>> inflated from Latin1 to UTF16 representations.
>> The refactoring pattern is to read and write AbstractStringBuilder fields
>> once using locals for all intermediate values.
>> Support methods are static, designed to pass all values as arguments and
>> return a value.
>>
>> The value byte array is reallocated under 3 conditions:
>> - Increasing the capacity with the same encoder
>> - Increasing the capacity and inflation to change the coder from LATIN1 to
>> UTF16
>> - Inflation with the same capacity
>>
>> Added StressSBTest to exercise public instance methods of StringBuilder.
>
> Roger Riggs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Refactor to consistently use `isLatin1(coder)` within AbstractStringBuilder.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java line 185:
> 183: if (coder == another.coder) {
> 184: return isLatin1(coder) ? StringLatin1.compareTo(val1, val2,
> count1, count2)
> 185: : StringUTF16.compareTo(val1, val2,
> count1, count2);
Suggestion:
return isLatin1(coder) ? StringLatin1.compareTo(val1, val2, count1,
count2)
: StringUTF16.compareTo(val1,
val2, count1, count2);
As before, align the code
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java line 188:
> 186: }
> 187: return isLatin1(coder) ? StringLatin1.compareToUTF16(val1, val2,
> count1, count2)
> 188: : StringUTF16.compareToLatin1(val1, val2,
> count1, count2);
Suggestion:
return isLatin1(coder) ? StringLatin1.compareToUTF16(val1, val2,
count1, count2)
:
StringUTF16.compareToLatin1(val1, val2, count1, count2);
As before, align the code
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24967#discussion_r2074477815
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24967#discussion_r2074478089
