Integrated: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 08:32:02 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > Hi all! > > Please review this PR to add a benchmark comparing the performance of > Arrays.mismatch intrinsic in the JDK with that of the Vector API. Kindly > refer to this [thread] on panama-dev regarding some initial d

Re: RFR: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark [v2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:49:38 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Kartik Ohri has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Update benchmark according to code review > > test/micro/org/open

Re: RFR: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark [v3]

bly]: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/7142362/benchmarks.txt > > Regards, > Kartik Kartik Ohri has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Fix typo Co-authored-by: Paul Sandoz - Changes: - all: htt

Re: RFR: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:05:55 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> Please review this PR to add a benchmark comparing the performance of >> Arrays.mismatch intrinsic in the JDK with that of the Vector API. Kindly >> refer to this [thread] on panama-dev regarding some initial discussion

Re: RFR: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark [v2]

bly]: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/7142362/benchmarks.txt > > Regards, > Kartik Kartik Ohri has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Update benchmark according to code review - Changes: - all: htt

RFR: 8273681: Add Vector API vs Arrays.mismatch intrinsic benchmark

Hi all! Please review this PR to add a benchmark comparing the performance of Arrays.mismatch intrinsic in the JDK with that of the Vector API. Kindly refer to this [thread] on panama-dev regarding some initial discussion about this benchmark. I have attached the [results] of the full

Re: Patch for JDK-8273541

Hi! Thanks for the reply, Aleksey and Alan. I had submitted the patch after viewing the first response but have now withdrawn it as PR is already open. Regards, Kartik On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:32 PM Alan Bateman wrote: > On 09/09/2021 13:36, Kartik Ohri wrote: > > Hi all! > &g

Patch for JDK-8273541

Hi all! I would like to work on a fix for JDK-8273541 . I think the regression was introduced by the change here . It

Withdrawn: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:25:13 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It makes sense to not treat it > specially in the JDK. Hence, refactoring the Launcher class to remove JavaFX > specific code. > > Further investigation reveals that some JavaF

Working on JDK-8072719

Hi! I think that JDK-8072719 , enhancing checked collections to accept a Predicate, can be a valuable addition to the JDK. I would like to start a discussion on whether this is a good fit for the Collections framework and the JDK. If it is decided

Withdrawn: 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and map() methods to OptionalDouble/Int/Long

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 10:49:01 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > Hi all, > This PR intends to add filter, map and flatMap methods to the Optional > classes for primitives. The rationale is consistency with the Optional class > for objects and user convenience. > Thanks. > Regards, &

Re: RFR: 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and map() methods to OptionalDouble/Int/Long

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 14:27:41 GMT, Rémi Forax wrote: >> Thank you for the suggestions. I'll try fixing some bugs first. Should I >> close this PR as well or leave it open ? > > If it doesn't break your hart too much, yes please. Sure, no worries. I am new to the project and understand that

Re: RFR: 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and map() methods to OptionalDouble/Int/Long

On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:45:06 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: >> Hi all, >> This PR intends to add filter, map and flatMap methods to the Optional >> classes for primitives. The rationale is consistency with the Optional class >> for objects and user convenience. >>

Re: RFR: 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and map() methods to OptionalDouble/Int/Long

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 10:49:01 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > Hi all, > This PR intends to add filter, map and flatMap methods to the Optional > classes for primitives. The rationale is consistency with the Optional class > for objects and user convenience. > Thanks. > Regards

8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

Hi! JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It does not make sense to treat it specially in the JDK. Hence, as suggested in JDK- 8248122 , the Launcher class should be refactored to remove the JavaFX

RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It makes sense to not treat it specially in the JDK. Hence, refactoring the Launcher class to remove JavaFX specific code. Further investigation reveals that some JavaFX specific code is also present in the `javadoc` tool. For instance,

RFR: 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and map() methods to OptionalDouble/Int/Long

Hi all, This PR intends to add filter, map and flatMap methods to the Optional classes for primitives. The rationale is consistency with the Optional class for objects and user convenience. Thanks. Regards, Kartik - Commit messages: - 8186085: (opt) add filter(), flatMap(), and