On Fri, 9 May 2025 00:20:19 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:
>
> Add an assert to inflateToUTF16 method
> Add doc of preconditions to appendChars... methods
> Correct misc javadoc
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java line 238:
> 236: * {@return true if the byte array should be replaced due to
> increased capacity or coder change}
> 237: * <ul>
> 238: * <li>The new coder is the different than the old coder
Suggestion:
* <li>The new coder is different than the old coder
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java line 1901:
> 1899: }
> 1900: return value;
> 1901: }
I think the logic can be simplified, without a need for the loop.
private static byte[] putCharsAt(byte[] value, byte coder, int count, int
index, char[] s, int off, int end) {
if (isLatin1(coder)) {
int latin1Len = StringUTF16.compress(s, off, value, index, end -
off);
if (latin1Len < end - off) {
value = inflateToUTF16(value, count);
StringUTF16.putCharsSB(value, index + latin1Len, s, off +
latin1Len, end);
}
} else {
StringUTF16.putCharsSB(value, index, s, off, end);
}
return value;
}
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24967#discussion_r2081686513
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24967#discussion_r2081689712
