I doubt it'll be faster, not with array bounds checking and the typical Java overhead. Feel free to benchmark using Caliper, for example:
http://code.google.com/p/caliper/ Dawid On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Both these classes set/get do this: > > int bit = index & 0x3f; // mod 64 > long bitmask = 1L << bit; > > Since bit has only 64 values, bitmask can only be 1, 10, 100... etc. I was > thinking that instead of doing the <<, we can have a static BIT_MASK array, > indexed by bit, and then we could use it to compute bitmask. > > But that replaces a bitwise shift by an array access, so I'm not sure how > much more efficient it will be? If the array is *hot* and in the L1 cache, > then it's supposed to be faster? > > Thoughts? > > Shai --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
