Andrew Haley wrote:
Ian Rogers wrote:
please give your comments on the attached patch. It tries to reduce the
size of char[] for strings used to hold numbers. It changes Float/Double
equals to use bit based comparisons rather than division. It increases
the use of valueOf methods. It adds a
Hi,
Andrew John Hughes schrieb:
> I'd second that. Are there clear performance benefits to justify
> creating 256 objects ahead of time?
> Not only does that introduce an overhead in initialising the Long
> class, but it also results in increased
> memory usage for all applications.
>
> I'd als
2008/6/3 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ian Rogers wrote:
>
>> please give your comments on the attached patch. It tries to reduce the
>> size of char[] for strings used to hold numbers. It changes Float/Double
>> equals to use bit based comparisons rather than division. It increases
>> the us
Ian Rogers wrote:
> please give your comments on the attached patch. It tries to reduce the
> size of char[] for strings used to hold numbers. It changes Float/Double
> equals to use bit based comparisons rather than division. It increases
> the use of valueOf methods. It adds a cache of values fr
Committed.
2008-04-18 Ian Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* java/lang/Byte.java (static): initialize byteCache.
(valueOf(String,int)): use valueOf(byte) rather than new.
(valueOf(String)): likewise.
(valueOf(byte)): Switch from lazy initialization of cached values to
David Daney wrote:
Ian Rogers wrote:
Hi,
please give your comments on the attached patch. It tries to reduce
the size of char[] for strings used to hold numbers. It changes
Float/Double equals to use bit based comparisons rather than
division. It increases the use of valueOf methods. It adds
Ian Rogers wrote:
Hi,
please give your comments on the attached patch. It tries to reduce the
size of char[] for strings used to hold numbers. It changes Float/Double
equals to use bit based comparisons rather than division. It increases
the use of valueOf methods. It adds a cache of values f
