Andrew Cornwall (JIRA) wrote:
I didn't do that because I assumed the overhead of the exception
handler would be too much. But it's worth a try - so I just did. Here
are the results for my testcase:
CpClass 0.685 3.066 Without exception handler: 0.685 s With exception
handler: 3.066 s
CpRef Without exception handler: 1.204 s With exception handler:
1.873 s
CPUTF8 Without exception handler: 2.323 s With exception handler:
6.761 s
In other words, with exception handlers our time for hashCode almost
doubles. Since hashCode accounts for slightly more than 10% of the
total time of the test case with the exception handlers and less than
4% without, I'm inclined to leave the exceptions uncaught.
Interesting. Are you running those tests with the IBM VM or the DRLVM?
I'm assuming that the difference in performance is due to the JITs
reluctance to in-line the longer version of hashCode() since the
exception handler itself should make no difference.
Regards,
Tim
